Skip to main content

Full text of "Mental Radio"

See other formats

133.8 S6lm 


Kansas city 
public library 
kansas city, 




tt *-* 



(Revised Second Printing) 




Introduction by 

Preface by 


With a Report by 


Springfield Illinois U.S.A. 


301 -52 7 East Lawrence Avenue, Springfield, Illinois, U.S.A. 

This boolc is protected, by copyright. No 
part of it may be reproduced in any manner 
without written permission from the publisher. 

1930 and 1962, by CHARLES C XHOMAS - PUBLISHER 
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 62-12057 

With THOMAS BOOKS careful attention is given to all details of 
manufacturing and design. It is the Publisher's desire to present books 
that are satisfactory as to their physical qualities and artistic possibilities 
and appropriate for their particular use. THOMAS BOOKS will be true 
to those laws of quality that assure a good name and good 

Printed in the United States of America 


J\J_r. Upton Sinclair needs no introduction to the public as 
a fearless, honest, and critical student o public affairs. But in the 
present book he has with characteristic courage entered a new field, 
one in which reputations are more easily lost than made, the field 
of Psychic Research. When he does me the honor to ask me to write 
a few words of introduction to this book, a refusal would imply on 
my part a lack either of courage or of due sense of scientific respon- 
sibility. I have long been keenly interested in this field; and it is 
not necessary to hold that the researches of the past fifty years have 
brought any solidly established conclusions in order to feel sure 
that further research is very much worth while. Even if the results 
of such research should in the end prove wholly negative that would 
be a result of no small importance; for from many points of view 
it is urgently to be wished that we may know where we stand in this 
question of the reality of alleged supernormal phenomena. In dis- 
cussing this question recently with a small group of scientific men, 
one of them (who is perhaps the most prominent and influential of 
American psychologists) seemed to feel that the whole problem was 
settled in the negative when he asserted that at the present time no 
American psychologist of standing took any interest in this field. 
I do not know whether he meant to deny my Americanism or my 
standing, neither of which I can establish. But his remark if it were 
true, would not in any degree support his conclusion; it would 
rather be a grave reproach to American psychologists. Happily it is 
possible to name several younger American psychologists who are 
keenly interested in the problem of telepathy. 

And it is with experiments in telepathy that Mr. Sinclair's 
book is chiefly concerned. In this part, as in other parts, of the 
field of Psychic Research, progress must largely depend upon such 
work by intelligent educated laymen or amateurs as is here re- 
ported. For facility in obtaining seemingly supernormal phenom- 
ena seems to be of rare and sporadic occurrence; and it is the duty 
of men of science to give whatever encouragement and sympathetic 

*. wisfts cut cio.) PUBLIC mm 



support may be possible to all amateurs who find themselves in 
a position to observe and carefully and honestly to study such 

Mrs. Sinclair would seem to be one of the rare persons who 
have telepathic power in a marked degree and perhaps other super- 
normal powers. The experiments in telepathy, as reported in the 
pages of this book, were so remarkably successful as to rank among 
the very best hitherto reported. The degree of success and the 
conditions of experiment were such that we can reject them as 
conclusive evidence of some mode of communication not at present 
explicable in accepted scientific terms only by assuming that Mr. 
and Mrs. Sinclair either are grossly stupid, incompetent and care- 
less persons or have deliberately entered upon a conspiracy to 
deceive the public in a most heartless and reprehensible fashion. 
I have unfortunately no intimate personal knowledge of Mr. and 
Mrs. Sinclair; but I am acquainted with some of Mr. Sinclair's 
earlier publications; and that acquaintance suffices to convince me, 
as it should convince any impartial reader, that he is an able and 
sincere man with a strong sense of right and wrong and of indi- 
vidual responsibility. His record and his writings should secure a 
wide and respectful hearing for what he has to tell us in the follow- 
ing pages. 

Mrs. Sinclair's account of her condition during successful ex- 
periments seems to me particularly interesting; for it falls into line 
with what has been observed by several other workers; namely, they 
report that a peculiar passive mental state or attitude seems to be 
a highly favorable, if not an essential, condition of telepathic com- 
munication. It would seem that if the faint and unusual telepathic 
processes are to manifest themselves, the track of the mind must be 
kept clear of other traffic. 

Other experiments reported in the book seem to imply some 
supernormal power of perception of physical things such as is com- 
monly called clairvoyance. It is natural and logical that alleged 
instances of clairvoyance should have from most of us a reception 
even more skeptical than that we accord to telepathic claims. After 
all, a mind at work is an active agent of whose nature and activity 
our knowledge is very imperfect; and science furnishes us no good 
reasons for denying that its activity may affect another mind in 


some fashion utterly obscure to us. But when an experimenter 
-seems to have large success in reading printed words shut in a thick- 
walled box, words whose identity is unknown to any human being, 
we seem to be more nearly in a position to assert positively That 
cannot occur! For we do seem to know with very fair completeness 
the possibilities of influence extending from the printed word to 
the experimenter; and under the conditions all such possibilities 
seem surely excluded. Yet here also we must keep the open mind, 
gather the facts, however unintelligible they may seem at present, 
repeating observations under varied conditions. 

And Mrs. Sinclair's clairvoyant successes do not stand alone. 
They are in line with the many successful "book-tests" recorded of 
recent years by competent workers of the English Society for Psy- 
chical Research, as well as with many other less carefully observed 
and recorded incidents. 

Mr. Sinclair's book will amply justify itself if it shall lead a 
few (let us say two per cent) of his readers to undertake carefully 
and critically experiments similar to those which he has so vividly 

Duke University ; N. C. 
September, 1929 


JLch habe das Buch von Upton Sinclair grossem Interesse 
gelesen und bin iiberzeugt, dass dasselbe die ernsteste Beachtung, 
nicht nur der Laien, sondern auch der Psychologen von Fach 
verdient. Die Ergebnisse der in diesem Buch sorgfaltig und deut- 
lich beschriebenen telepathischen Experimente stehen sicher weit 
ausserhalb desjenigen, was ein Naturforscher fur denkbar halt. 
Andererseit aber ist es bei einem so gewissenhaf ten Beobachter und 
Schriftsteller wie Upton Sinclair ausgeschlossen, dass er eine 
bewusste Tauschung der Leserwelt anstrebt; seine bona fides und 
Zuverlassigkeit darf nicht bezweifelt werden. Wenn also etwa die 
mit grosser Klarheit dargestellten Tatsachen nicht auf Telepathic, 
sondern etwa auf unbewussten hypnothischen Einfliissen von Per- 
son zu Person beruhen sollten, so ware auch dies von hohem 
psychologischen Interesse. Keinesfalls also sollten die psychologisch 
interessierten Kreise an diesem Buch achtlos voriibergehn. 

den 23. Mai 1930 


JL have read the book of Upton Sinclair with great interest 
and am convinced that the same deserves the most earnest consid- 
eration, not only of the laity, but also of the psychologists by 
profession. The results of the telepathic experiments carefully and 
plainly set forth in this book stand surely far beyond those which 
a nature investigator holds to be thinkable. On the other hand, 
it is out of the question in the case of so conscientious an observer 
and writer as Upton Sinclair that he is carrying on a conscious 
deception of the reading world; his good faith and dependability 
are not to be doubted. So if somehow the facts here set forth rest 
not upon telepathy, but upon some unconscious hypnotic influence 
from person to person, this also would be of high psychological 
interest. In no case should the psychologically interested circles 
pass over this book heedlessly. 

[signed] A. EINSTEIN 
May 23, 1930 


J. contemplated a statement introducing this book to the 
reader, but on further thought I realized that the book introduces 
itself and speaks for itself all the way through. 1 will only say that 
Mary Craig Kimbrough was my wife for almost half a century. 
She guarded me, managed me, and worried about me during that 
period for the task was an unending one. I was often engaged in 
politically and socially dangerous tasks, and Craig was the one who 
realized the dangers and undertook the task of saving me. This 
went on all through our marriage, and in the end her heart weak- 
ened, and for almost ten years I dropped all my other tasks and 
devoted myself to keeping her alive. She died in April, 1961. 

I wrote the text of Mental Radio, 1929, under her direction; 
she revised every word and had it exactly the way she wanted it. 
She was the most conscientious and morally exacting person I have 
ever known. Loyalty to the truth was her religion; and every 
sentence in this book was studied so that it would be exactly true 
and so clear that nobody could misunderstand it. She knew just 
how we did our experiments; she had told me exactly what to do, 
and I had done it; if I set it down wrong in the manuscript, she 
made it right. 

She has told of her early psychic experiences, and they were 
enough to fill her with determination to make sure they were real, 
and if possible to find out what they meant. It was she who laid 
down all the procedures in our tests. It was she who studied the 
results and got the record exact to the last comma. In reading this 
book bear in mind, there are no errors. If the book says that the 
experiment was done in a certain precise way, that is the way it was 
done; and always it was done without prejudice, without a pre- 
conception or anything that could affect the result. When the 
record was put on paper every word had to be studied, and every 
little mistake that I made had to be corrected by her tenacious 

So trust this book. Understand that what is told here happened 


exactly as it has been told. Don't think that maybe there ^was a 
slight slip, or that there is a careless word. I remember in the 
course of the years some learned psychologist suggesting that maybe 
Craig had unconsciously got some idea of what the drawings were 
by seeing the movement of my pen or pencil. This meant just one 
thing-the learned gentleman didn't want to believe, and hadn't 
taken the trouble to go back and study the book. You who are going 
to read now will note again and again that I went into another 
room to make the drawing, and I shut the door. Make note now 
and bear it in mind all through the book, I never made a drawing 
in the same room with Craig; and always the door was shut. To 
have done otherwise would have been to waste her time as well as 
mine, and she saw to it that I did not waste either. She wanted to 
know; she was determined to know; she laid down the law, and I 
obeyed it. The only way you can reject the evidence in this book is 
to decide that we were a pair of unconscionable rascals. 

Ill give you one opinion about that. Albert Einstein, possessor 
of one of the greatest modern brains, and also of a high character, 
was one of our close friends. He came to our home, and we came 
to his, and he witnessed some of our experiments. When this book 
was ready for publication in 1929 I sent him a set of the proofs and 
asked him if he would care to write a preface for the German 
edition. He consented and wrote the letter in German to the 
German publisher. Unfortunately, the publisher went out of 

What you are goii*g to read is the exact text of Craig's book 
as it was written in the year 1929 and published in the next year. 
The only changes I have made have to do with the lapse of thirty 
years since the text was written. Near the end are one or two 
references to friends who have since died, but you probably never 
knew those persons, so it doesn't matter. 

At the end of the book I have published a few comments on 
it, and an account, written by myself, of later experiments. Also 
I give an extensive summary of the results of a study of the drawings 
published by Dr. Walter Franklin Prince, a Boston clergyman who 
resigned from his pulpit in order to become Research Officer of 
the Boston Society for Psychic Research. Dr. Prince asked if we 


would be willing to entrust the documents to his examination, and 
I immediately bundled them up and sent them to him by registered 
mail. The long commentary which he wrote appeared in the 
Bulletin of the society for April, 1932. 

Perhaps the most important single item concerning Mental 
Radio is the following: 

Prof. William MacDougall, who had been head of the Depart- 
ment of Psychology at Oxford University and later head of the 
Department of Psychology at Harvard and who had won the title 
of "Dean of American Psychology" came to see us in Pasadena 
soon after the publication of this book. He told Ctaig that he had 
just accepted the job of head of the Department of Psychology at 
Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and would have at his 
disposal a considerable fund for research. He had read Mental 
Radio and had written the preface which is in this book, and he 
said that he would like to be able to say that he himself had wit- 
nessed a test of the genuineness of Craig's telepathic power. 

Craig had always shrunk from anything of that sort because 
her power depended entirely upon solitude and concentration; but 
her respect for MacDougall was great, and she told hiia she would 
do her best. He said that he had some pictures in his inside coat 
pocket, and he would like to see if she could describe them. She sat 
quietly with her eyes closed and presently said that she saw a build- 
ing with stone walls and narrow windows, and it seemed to be 
covered with green leaves. MacDougall took from his inside coat 
pocket a postcard of one of the buildings at Oxford covered with ivy. 

Other tests with him will appear later. Here I add one more 
story, how we took the good man for a test with Arthur Ford, who 
was then head of a spiritualistic church In Los Angeles. I had picked 
out four letters or postcards from well-known persons, one of them 
Jack London and another Georg Brandes, the Danish critic, highly 
respected. I wrapped each of these documents in a sheet of green 
paper to remove any possibility of holding them up to the light 
or otherwise getting a glimpse. I showed this to MacDougall, and 
he agreed that the concealment was effective. We then sealed them 
in four numbered envelopes, and in a little ante-room of the church 


Arthur Ford lay back in his chair, covered his eyes with a hand- 
kerchief, and put the envelopes one by one on his forehead. 

I subsequently wrote an article about the experiment which 
was published in the Psychic Observer , but I do not have the text 
at hand. Ford told us significant things about the contents of all 
those envelopes, and I remember that afterwards MacDougall, 
Craig and I strolled down the street and stopped at a little kiosk 
where we ordered lemonade or orange juice. I said, "Well, what 
do you think of it?" and MacDougall's answer was, "I should say 
that it is undoubtedly supernormal." 

He then told Craig that what she had done had already decided 
him he was going to Duke University in a week or two and his 
first action would be to set up a Department of Parapsychology. 
That was a little over thirty years ago, and I think It is correct to 
say that what MacDougall did, with the help of J. B. Rhine, his 
assistant and later his successor, has made the subject of Parapsy- 
chology scientifically respectable throughout the United States and 

And now, to the text, as published, 1931. 




Introduction by WILLIAM McDouGAix v 

Preface by ALBERT EINSTEIN viii 

Foreword 3d 


Addendum: The Sinclair Experiments for Telepathy 


Epilogue 237 


JLf you were bom as long as fifty years ago, you can remember 
a time when the test of a sound, common-sense mind was refusing 
to fool with "new-fangled notions/' Without exactly putting it into 
a formula, people took it for granted that truth was known and 
familiar, and anything that was not known and familiar was non- 
sense. In my boyhood, the funniest joke in the world was a "flying 
machine man"; and when my mother took up a notion about 
"germs" getting into you and making you sick, my father made it a 
theme for no end of domestic wit. Even as late as twenty years ago, 
when I wanted to write a play based on the idea that men might 
some day be able to make a human voice audible to groups of 
people all over America, my friends assured me that I could not 
interest the public in such a fantastic notion. 

Among the objects of scorn, in my boyhood, was what we called 
"superstition"; and we made the term include, not merely the 
notion that the number thirteen brought you bad luck, not merely 
a belief in witches, ghosts and goblins, but also a belief in any 
strange phenomena of the mind which we did not understand. 
We knew about hypnotism, because we had seen stage perform- 
ances, and were in the midst of reading a naughty book called 
Trilby, but such things as trance mediumship, automatic writing, 
table-tapping, telekinesis, telepathy and clairvoyance we didn't 
know these long names, but if such ideas were explained to us, we 
knew right away that it was "all nonsense." 

In my youth I had the experience of meeting a scholarly 
Unitarian clergyman, the Rev. Minot J. Savage of New York, who 
assured me quite seriously that he had seen and talked with ghosts. 
He didn't convince me, but he sowed the seed of curiosity in my 
mind, and I began reading books on psychic research. From first 
to last, I have read hundreds of volumes; always interested, and 
always uncertain an uncomfortable mental state. The evidence in 
support of telepathy came to seem to me conclusive, yet it never 


quite became real to me. The consequences of belief would be so 
tremendous, the changes it would make in my view of the universe 
so revolutionary, that I didn't believe, even when I said I did. 

But for thirty years the subject has been among the things I 
hoped to know about; and, as it happened, fate was planning to 
favor me. It sent me a wife who became interested, and who not 
merely investigated telepathy, but learned to practice it. For three 
years I watched and assisted in this work, day by day and night by 
night, in our home. So I could say that I was no longer guessing. 
Now I really know. I am going to tell you about it, and hope to 
convince you; but regardless of what anybody can say, there will 
never again be a doubt about it in my mind. I KNOW! 

JLelepathy, or mind-reading: that is to say, can one human 
mind communicate with another human mind, except by the sense 
channels ordinarily known and usedseeing, hearing, feeling, tast- 
ing and touching? Can a thought or image in one mind be sent 
directly to another mind and there reproduced and recognized? If 
this can be done, how is it done? Is It some kind of vibration, going 
out from the brain, like radio broadcasting? Or is it some contact 
with a deeper level of mind, as bubbles on a stream have contact 
with the water of the stream? And if this power exists, can It be 
developed and used? Is it something that manifests itself now and 
then, like a lightning flash, over which we have no control? Or can 
we make the energy and store It, and use it regularly, as we have 
learned to do with the lightning which Franklin brought from the 

These are the questions; and the answers, as well as I can sum- 
marize them, are as follows: Telepathy Is real; it does happen. 
Whatever may be the nature of the force, it has nothing to do with 
distance, for it works exactly as well over forty miles as over a few 
feet. And while It may be spontaneous and may depend upon a 
special endowment, it can be cultivated and used deliberately, as 
any other object of study, in physics and chemistry. The essential 
In this training is an art of mental concentration and autosugges- 
tion, which can be learned. I am going to tell you not merely what 
you can do, but how you can do it, so that if you have patience and 
real interest, you can make your own contribution to knowledge. 

Starting the subject, I am like the wandering book-agent or 
peddler who taps on your door and gets you to open it, and has to 
speak quickly and persuasively, putting his best goods foremost. 
Your prejudice is against this Idea; and if you are one of my old-time 
readers, you are a little shocked to find me taking up a new and 
unexpected line of activity. You have come, after thirty years, to 
the position where you allow me to be one kind of "crank/' but 


you won't stand for two kinds. So let me come straight to the point 
open up my pack, pull out my choicest wares, and catch your 
attention with them if I can. 

Here is a drawing of a table-fork. It was done with a lead- 
pencil on a sheet of ruled paper, which has been photographed, 
and then reproduced in the ordinary way. You note that it bears 
a signature and a date (Fig. I): 

Kg. i 

This drawing was produced by my brother-in-law, Robert L. 
Irwin, a young business man, and no kind of "crank/* under the 
following circumstances. He was sitting in a room in his home in 
Pasadena at a specified hour, eleven-thirty in the morning of July 
13, 1928, having agreed to make a drawing of any object he might 
select, at random, and then to sit gazing at it, concentrating his 
entire attention upon it for a period of from fifteen to twenty 

At the same agreed hour, eleven-thirty in the morning of July 
13, 1928, my wife was lying on the couch in her study, in our home 
in Long Beach, forty miles away by the road. She was in semi- 
darkness, with her eyes closed; employing a system of mental con- 
centration which she has been practicing off and on for several 
years, and mentally suggesting to her subconscious mind to bring 
her whatever was in the mind of her brother-in-law. Having be- 
come satisfied that the image which came to her mind was the cor- 
rect one because it persisted, and came back again and again she 
sat up and took pencil and paper and wrote the date, and six words, 
as follows (Fig. la): 

A day or two later we drove to Pasadena, and then in the 
presence of Bob and his wife, the drawing and writing were pro- 
duced and compared. I have in my possession affidavits from Bob, 
his wife, and my wife, to the effect that the drawing and writing 



Fig. la 

were produced in this way. Later in this book I shall present four 
other pairs of drawings, made in the same way, three of them 
equally successful. 

Second case. Here is a drawing (Fig. 2), and below it a set of 

five drawings (Fig. 2a): 

Fig. 2 

Fig. 2a 


The above drawings were produced under the following cir- 
cumstances. The single drawing (Fig. 2) was made by me 'Jin my 
study at my home. I was alone, and the door was closed before the 
drawing was made, and was not opened until the test was concluded. 
Having made the drawing, I held it before me and concentrated 
upon it for a period of five or ten minutes./ 

\The five drawings (Fig. 2a) were produced by my wife, who 
was lying on the couch in her study, some thirty feet away from 
me, with the door closed between us. The only words spoken were 
as follows: when I was ready to make my drawing, I called, "All 
right," and when she had completed her drawings, she called "All 
right" whereupon I opened the door and took my drawing to her 
and we compared them. I found that in addition to the five little 
pictures, she had written some explanation of how she came to draw 
them^ This I shall quote and discuss later on. I shall also tell about 
six other pairs of drawings, produced at this same time. 

Third case: another drawing (Fig. 3 a), produced under the 
following circumstances. My wife went upstairs, and shut the door 
which is at the top of the stairway. I went on tip-toe to a cupboard 
in a downstairs room and took from a shelf a red electric-light bulb 
it having been agreed that I should select any small article, of 
which there were certainly many hundreds in our home. I wrapped 
this bulb in several thicknesses of newspaper, and put it, so wrapped, 
in a shoe-box, and wrapped the shoe-box in a whole newspaper, 
and tied it tightly with a string. I then called my wife and she came 
downstairs, and lay on her couch and put the box on her body, over 
the solar plexus. I sat watching, and never took my eyes from her, 
nor did I speak a word during the test. Finally she sat up, and made 
her drawing, with the written comment, and handed it to me. 
Every word of the comment, as well as the drawing, was produced 
before I said a word, and the drawing and writing as here repro- 
duced have not been touched or altered in any way (Fig. 3a) : 


Kg. 3a 

The text of my wife's written comment is as follows: 

"First see round glass. Guess nose glasses? No. Then comes 
V shape again with a 'button* in top. Button stands out from 
object. This round top is of different color from lower part. It is 
light color, the other part is dark/' 

To avoid any possible misunderstanding, perhaps I should 
state that the question and answer in the above were my wife's 
description of her own mental process, and do not represent a ques- 
tion asked of me. She did not "guess" aloud, nor did either of 
us speak a single word during this test, except the single word, 
"Ready," to call my wife downstairs. 

The next drawings were produced in the following manner. 
The one at the top (Fig. 4) was flrawn by me alone in my study, 
and was one of nine, all made at the same time, and with no restric- 
tion upon what I should draw anything that came into my head. 
Having made the nine drawings, I wrapped each one in a separate 
sheet of green paper, to make it absolutely invisible, and put each 
one in a plain envelope and sealed it, and then took the nine sealed 
envelopes and laid them on the table by my wife's couch. My wife 
then took one of them and placed it over her solar plexus, and lay 
in her state of concentration, while I sat watching her, at her insist- 
ence, in order to make the evidence more convincing. Having 
received what she considered a convincing telepathic "message," 



Fig. 4 

Fig, 4a 

or Image of the contents of the envelope, she sat up and made her 
sketch (Fig. 4a) on a pad of paper) 

^The essence of our procedure is this: that never did she see 
my drawing until hers was completed and her descriptive words 
written; that I spoke no word and made no comment until after 
this was done/ and that the drawings presented here are in every 
case exactly what I drew, and the corresponding drawing is exactly 
what my wife drew, with no change or addition whatsoever. In 
the case of this particular pair, my wife wrote, "Inside of rock well 
with vines climbing on outside/' Such was her guess as to the draw- 
ing, which I had meant for a bird's nest surrounded by leaves; but 
you see that the two drawings are for practical purposes identical. 

Many tests have been made, by each of the different methods 
above outlined, and the results will be given and explained in these 
pages. The method of attempting to reproduce little drawings was 
used more than any other, simply because it proved the most con- 
venient; it could be done at a moment's notice, and so fitted into 
our busy lives. The procedure was varied in a few details to save 
time and trouble, as I shall later explain, but the essential feature 
remains unchanged: I make a set of drawings, and my wife takes 



them one by one and attempts to reproduce them without having 
seen them. Here are a few samples, chosen at random because of 
their picturesque character. If my wife wrote anything on the draw- 
ing, I add it as "comment 1 '; and you are to understand here, and 
for the rest of this book, that "comment" means the exact words 
which she wrote before she saw my drawing. Often there will be 
parts of this "comment" visible in the photograph. I give It all in 
print. Note that drawings 1, 2, 3, etc. are mine, while la, 2a, 3a, etc., 
are my wife's. 

In the case of my drawing numbered five, my wife's comment 
was: "Knight's helmet." 

Hg. S 

Fig. 5a 

Fig. 6 

Fig. 6a 

On figure 6, the comment was: "Desert scene, camel, ostrich, 
then below" and the drawing in figure 6a. On the reverse side of 
the page is further comment: "This came in fragments, as if I saw 
it being drawn by invisible pencil." 



And here is a pair with no comment, and none needed (Figs. 

7, 7a): 


Fig. 7 

Fig. 7a 

On the following, also, no comment was written (Figs. 8, 8a): 

Fig. 8 

Fig. 9 

Fig. 8a 

Fig. 9a 


I drew Figure 9, and my wife drew 9a, a striking success, and 
wrote the comment: "May be elephant's snout but anyway it is 
some kind of a running animal. Long thing like rope flung out 
in front of him." 

Next, a series of three pairs, which, as it happened, were done 
one after the other, numbers three, four and five in the twenty- 
third series of my drawings. They are selected in part because 
they are amusing. First, I tried to draw a bat, from vague memories 
of boyhood days when they used to fly into the ball-rooms at Vir- 
ginia springs hotels, and have to be massacred with brooms, be- 
cause it was believed that they sought to tangle themselves in the 
hair of the ladies (Figs. 10, lOa) : 

Fig. 10 

Fig. iOa 

My wife's comment on the above reads: "Big insect. I know 
this is right because it moves his legs as if flying. Beetle working 
its legs. Legs in motion!" 

And next, my effort at a Chinese mandarin (Figs. 11, 11 a): 

Fig. II Fig. lla 

The comment reads: "More beetles, or legged bugs"and 
she draws the mustaches of the mandarin and his hair. "Head of 


dragon with big mouth. See also a part of his body in front, or 
shoulders." The association of mandarins with dragons is obvious. 
And finally, my effort at a boy's foot and roller-skate, which 
undergoes a strange telepathic transformation. I have put it upside 
down for easier comparison (Figs. 12, 12a): 

Wig. 12a 

The comment, complete, reads: "Profile of head and neck 
of animal lion or dog a muzzle. Maybe pig snout." 

The above are samples of our successes. Altogether, of such 
drawings, 38 were prepared by my secretary, while I made 252, a 
total of 290. I have classified the drawings to the best of my ability 
into three groups: successes, partial successes, and failures. The 
partial successes are those drawings which contain some easily recog- 
nized element of the original drawing: such as, for example, the 
last one above. The profile of a pig's head is not a roller skate, but 
when you compare the drawings, you see that in my wife's first 
sketch the eyes resemble the wheels of the roller-skates, and in her 
second sketch the snout resembles my shoe-tip; also there is a gen- 
eral similarity of outline, which is what she most commonly gets. 


In the 290 drawings, the total of successes is 65, which is roughly 
23 per cent. The total of partial successes is 155, which is 53 per 
cent. The total of failures is 70, which is 24 per cent. I asked some 
mathematician friends to work out the probabilities on the above 
results, but I found that the problem was too complicated. Who 
could estimate how many possible objects there were, which might 
come into my head to be drawn? Any time the supply ran short, 
I would pick up a magazine, and in the advertising pages find a 
score of new drawings to imitate. Again, very few of the drawings 
were simple. \We began with such things as a circle, a square, a 
cross, a number or a letter; but soon we were doing Chinese man- 
darins with long mustaches, and puppies chasing a string.^ Each of 
these drawings has many different features; and what mathema- 
tician could count the number of these features, and the chances 
of reproducing them? 

It is a matter to be judged by common sense. It seems to me 
any one must agree that the chances of the twelve drawings so far 
shown having been reproduced by accident is too great to be worth 
considering. A million years would not be enough for such a set 
of coincidences. 

jVtuch of the evidence which I am using rests upon the good 
faith of Mary Craig Sinclair; so, before we go further, I ask your 
permission to introduce her. She is a daughter of the far South; 
her father a retired planter, bank president and judge, of Missis- 
sippi. The fates endowed his oldest child with the blessings of 
beauty, health, wealth and wisdom and then spoiled it, by adding 
a curse in the shape of a too tender heart. The griefs of other people 
overwhelm Craig like a suffocation. Strangers take one glance at 
her, and instantly decide that here is one who will "understand." 
I have seen her go into a store to buy a piece of ribbon, and come 
out with tears in her eyes, because of a tragic story which some 
clerk was moved to pour out to her, all in a moment, without provo- 
cation. She has always said that she "gets" the feelings of people, 
not by their words, but by intuition. But she never paid any at- 
tention to this gift; never associated it with "psychic" matters. She 
was always too busy, first with eight younger brothers and sis- 
ters, and then with the practical affairs of an unpractical author- 

Early in childhood, things like this would happen: her mother 
would say to a little negro servant, "Go and find Miss Mary Craig"; 
but before the boy could start, Craig would know that her mother 
wanted her, and would be on the way. This might, of course, have 
been coincidence; if it stood alone, it would have no value. But 
the same thing happened with dreams. Craig dreamed there was a 
needle in her bed, and woke up and looked for it in vain; in the 
morning she told her mother, who slept in another room. The 
mother said: "How strange! I dreamed the same thing, and I woke 
up and really found one!" 

Of her young ladyhood, Craig told this story, one of many: 
Driving with a girl friend, miles from home, she suddenly re- 
marked: "Let's go home; Mr. B is there." Now this was a place 
to which Mr. B had never come; it was three hundred miles from 



his town. But Craig said: "I have just had an impression of him, 
sitting on our front porch/' Going home, they found him there. 

Another instance, of more recent date. Shortly after our com- 
ing to California, my wife all at once became greatly worried about 
Jack London; she insisted that he was in terrible mental distress. 
As it happened, George Sterling had told us much about Jack's 
troubles, but these were of old standing, and there was nothing 
to account for the sudden notion which my wife took up on a cer- 
tain day. We had a lot of conversation about it; I offered to take 
her to the London ranch, but she said she would not attempt to 
meddle in the affairs of a married man, unless at his wife's request. 
I made the laughing suggestion that she go alone, in the guise of 
a gypsy fortune-teller a r61e which in her young ladyhood she had 
played with social clat. Two days later we read that Jack London 
was dead, and very soon came letters from George Sterling, telling 
us that he had taken his own life. This, again, might be coincidence; 
if it stood alone I would attach no importance to it. But taken with 
this mass of evidence, it has a share of weight. 

When we were married, seventeen years ago, we spent some 
time in England, and there we met a woman physician, interested 
in "mental healing," and full of ideas about "psychic" things. Both 
Craig and I were in need of healing, having been through a siege 
of trouble. Craig was suffering with intense headaches, something 
hitherto unknown in her life; while I had an ancient problem of 
indigestion, caused by excess of brain work and lack of body work. 
We began to experiment with healing by the 'laying on of hands"- 
without knowing anything about it, just groping in the dark. I 
found that I could cure Craig's headaches and get them myself; 
while she found that she could take my indigestion, a trouble she 
had never known hitherto. Each of us was willing to take the other's 
pains, but neither was willing to give them, so our experiments 
came to a halt. 

We forgot the whole subject for more than ten years. I was 
busy trying to reform America; while Craig was of the most in- 
tensely materialistic convictions. Her early experiences of evan- 
gelical religion had repelled her so violently that everything 
suggestive of "spirituality" was repugnant to her. Never was a wo- 
man more "practical," more centered upon the here and now, the 


things which can be seen and touched. I do not go into details 
about this, but I want to make it as emphatic as possible, for the 
light it throws upon her attitude and disposition. 

But shortly after the age of forty, her custom of carrying the 
troubles of all who were near her resulted in a breakdown of health. 
A story of suffering needless to go into: suffice it that she had many 
ills to experiment upon, and mental control became suddenly a 
matter of life and death. In the course of the last five or six years 
Craig has acquired a fair-sized library of books on the mind, both 
orthodox scientific, and "crank." She has sat up half the night 
studying, marking passages and making notes, seeking to reconcile 
various doctrines, to know what the mind really is, and how it works, 
and what can be done with it. Always it was a practical problem: 
things had to work. If now she believes anything, rest assured that 
it is because she has tried it out in the crucibles of pain, and proved 
it in her daily regimen. 

She was not content to see psychic phenomena produced by 
other persons. Even though authorities warned her that trances 
might be dangerous, and that rapport with others might lead to 
dissociations of personality even so, she had to find out for herself. 
A hundred times in the course of experiments of which I am going 
to tell, she has turned to me, saying: "Can you think of any way 
this can be chance? What can I do to make it more sure?" When I 
said, the other night: "This settles it for me. I am going to write 
the story," her reply was, "Wait a while!" She wants to do more 
experimenting; but I think that enough is enough. 

JLwo years ago Craig and I heard of a "psychic," a young 
foreigner who was astounding physicians of Southern California, 
performing feats so completely beyond their understanding that 
they were content to watch without trying to understand. We went 
to see this young man, and befriended him; he came to our home 
every day, and his strange demonstrations became familiar to us. 
He had the ability to produce anaesthesia in many parts of his body, 
and stick hatpins through his tongue and cheeks without pain; he 
could go into a deep trance in which his body became rigid and 
cold; and I put his head on one chair and his heels on another, and 
stood in the middle, as if he were a two-inch plank. We have a 
motion picture film, showing a 150-pound rock being broken with 
a sledge-hammer on his abdomen while he lay in this trance. The 
vital faculties were so far suspended in this trance that he could be 
shut up in an airtight coffin and buried underground for several 
hours; nor was there any hocus-pocus about this I know physicians 
who got the coffins and arranged for the tests and watched every 
detail; in Ventura, California, it was done in a ball park, and a 
game was played over the grave. 

In our home he gave what appeared to be a demonstration of 
levitation without contact. I do not say that it really w as levitation; 
I merely say that our friends who witnessed it physicians, scientists, 
writers and their wives, fourteen persons in all were unable even 
to suggest a normal method by which the event could have hap- 
pened. There was no one present who could have been a confeder- 
ate, and the psychic had been searched for apparatus; it was in our 
home, where he had no opportunity whatever for preparation. His 
wrists and ankles were firmly held by persons whom I know well; 
and there was sufficient light in the room so that I could see the 
outline of his figure, slumped in a chair. Under these circum- 
stances a 34-pound table rose four feet into the air and moved 
slowly a distance of eight feet over my head. 



We saw this; our friends saw it; yet, in my mind, and likewise 
in theirs, the worm of doubt would always creep in. There are so 
many ways to fool people; so many conjuring tricks think of 
Houdini, for example! I was unwilling to publish what I had seen; 
yet, also, I was unwilling not to publish it for think of the possi- 
ble importance of faculties such as this, locked up in our minds! 
Here was my wife, ill, suffering pain; and these facilities might 
perhaps be used in healing. If by concentration and auto-sugges- 
tion it was possible for the mind to control the body, and put a veto 
upon even a few of its disorders, certainly it was worth while for us 
to prove the fact. I could not escape the moral obligation to probe 
these matters. 

This "psychic' ' claimed also to possess and demonstrate the 
power of telepathy, or mind-reading. He would go out of the room 
while one of us selected mentally some object in the room, not 
revealing the choice to any one else. The "psychic" would then 
come back, and tell us to stand behind him and concentrate our 
thoughts upon that object, and follow close behind him, thinking 
of it. He would wander about the room for a while, and in the end 
pick up the object, and do with it whatever we mentally "willed" 
him to do. 

We saw him make this test not less than a hundred times, in 
California, New York, and Boston; he succeeded with it more than 
half the time. There was no contact, no word spoken, nothing that 
we could imagine as giving him a clue. Did we unconsciously make 
in our throats some faint pronunciation of words, and did the young 
man have a super-acuity of hearing? Again, you see, the worm of 
doubt, and we never could quite decide what we really believed 
about this performance. After puzzling over it for a year or more, 
my wife said: "There is only one way to be certain. I am going to 
learn to do these things myself!" 

This young man, whom I will call Jan, was a peculiar person. 
Sometimes he would be open and frank, and again he would be 
mysterious and secretive. At one time he would agree to teach us 
all he knew, and again he would hold on to his arts, which he had 
had to go all the way to India to get. Was it that he considered these 
forces too dangerous for amateurs to play with? Or was it merely 
that he was considering his means of livelihood? 


Jan was a hypnotist; and my wife had come to realize that all 
illness is more or less amenable to suggestion. She had had the idea 
of being hypnotized and given curative suggestions; but she did not 
know enough about this stranger, and was unwilling to trust him. 
After she got to know him better, her purposes changed. Here was 
a fund of knowledge which she craved, and she put her woman's 
wits to work to get it. She told him to go ahead and hypnotize her 
and explained to me her purpose of trying to turn the tables on him. 
Jan fixed his eyes upon hers in the hypnotic stare, and made his 
magnetic passes; at the same time his patient stared back, and I sat 
and watched the strange duel of personalities. 

An essential part of Jan's technique, as he had explained it, 
was in outstaring the patient and never blinking his eyes. Now sud- 
denly he blinked; then he closed his eyes and kept them closed. "Do 
your eyes hurt?" asked his patient, in pretended innocence. "No/* 
he replied. "Are you tired?" she asked. "No, thank you," said he. 
"What was I thinking?" she asked. "To hypnotize me," he replied, 
sleepily. But Craig wanted further proof, so she closed her eyes and 
willed that Jan should get up and go to the telephone. "Shall I 
go on treating you?" he asked. "Yes," said she. He hesitated a 
moment, then said, "Excuse me, I have to telephone to a friend!" 

I am telling about these matters in the order of time, as they 
came to us. I am sorry that these stories of Jan come first, because 
they are the strangest, and the least capable of proof. In the hope of 
taking part of the onus from our shoulders, let me quote from a 
book by Charles Richet, a member of the Institute of Medicine in 
France, and a leading scientist; he is citing Pierre Janet, whose 
name is known wherever in the world the human mind is studied. 
The statement reads: 

"P. Janet, a most eminent French psychiatrist, and one of the 
founders of the famous Salpetriere school of psychology in Paris, 
and a careful and sceptical observer, has verified that a patient of 
his, Leonie B., being put into hypnotic sleep by himself, or his 
brother (from whom Leonie in her hypnotic sleep was unable to 
distinguish him), could recognize exactly the substance that he 
placed in his mouth sugar, salt, pepper. One day his brother, J. 
Janet, in an adjoining room, scorched his right arm above the wrist. 
Leonie, who could have known nothing about it normally, gave 


signs of real pain, and showed to P. Janet (who knew nothing of the 
occurrence), the exact place of the burn/' 

Or let me cite the late Professor Quackenbos, of Columbia 
University, who wrote many books on hypnotism as a therapeutic 
agency, and tells of numerous cases of the same kind. He himself 
would sometimes go involuntarily into hypnotic sleep with his 
patient, and so, sometimes, would the nurse. Frequently between 
the hypnotist and the subject comes what is called rapport, where- 
by each knows what is in the other's mind, and suggestions are 
taken without their being spoken. You may believe this, or refuse 
to believe it-that is your privilege. All I want to do is to make 
clear that my wife is claiming no special achievement, but merely 
repeating the standard experiences of the textbooks on this subject. 

This rapport between Craig and her protege was developed to 
such an extent that she could tell him what was in his mind, and 
what he had been doing; she told him many stories about himself, 
where he had been and what he had done at a certain hour. This 
was embarrassing to a young man who perhaps did not care to have 
his life so closely overseen; also, possibly, he was wounded in his 
amour propre, that a mere amateur and a woman at that should 
be coming into possession of his secret arts. 

The trick depends upon a process of intense concentration, 
which will later be described in detail. After this concentration, 
Craig would give to her subconscious mind the suggestion, or com- 
mand, that it should bring to her consciousness a vision of what Jan 
was doing. This giving an order to the subconscious mind is much 
the same sort of thing that you do when you seek to remember a 
name; whether you realize it or not, you order your subconscious, 
mind to get that bit of information and bring it to you. Whatever 
came to Craig, she would write it out, and when next she met Jan, 
she would use her woman's wits to verify it without Jan's knowing 
what was happening. At times it would be very amusing when he 
would find himself accused of some youthful misdemeanor which 
his preceptress was not supposed to know about. In his efforts to 
defend himself, he would fail entirely to realize the telepathic 
aspects of the matter. 


JL lease let me repeat, I am not telling here a set of fairy tales 
and fantasies; I am presenting a record of experiments, conducted 
in strict scientific fashion. All the results were set down day by 
day in writing. For an hour or two every day for the past three years 
my wife has been scribbling notes of her experiments, and there 
are eight boxes full in her study, enough to fill a big trunk. No 
statement in all the following rests upon our memories; everything 
is taken from memoranda now in my hands. Admitting that new 
facts can be learned about the mind, I do not see how any one can 
use more careful methods than we have done. 

My wife "saw" Jan carrying a bouquet of flowers, wrapped in 
white paper, on the street, and she wrote this down. She later 
ascertained that at this hour Jan had carried flowers to a friend in 
a hospital in Los Angeles, and she telephoned this friend and veri- 
fied the facts. On another occasion when Jan was in Santa Barbara, 
a hundred miles from our home, she "saw" him escorting a blonde 
girl in a blue dress from an auto to a hotel over a rainy pavement; 
she wrote this down, and later ascertained that it had actually been 
happening. The details were verified, not merely by Jan, but by 
another member of the party. I ought to add that in no case did 
my wife tell the other persons what she had "seen" until after these 
persons had told her what had happened. No chance was taken of 
their making up events to conform to her records. Always Craig 
kept her cold-blooded determination to know what was real in this 
field where so much is invented and imagined. 

Again, she "saw" Jan preparing to commit suicide, dressed in 
a pair of yellow silk pajamas; then she "saw" him lying dead on the 
floor. She was much disturbed until Jan reminded her that he had 
been seven times publicly "buried" in Southern California before 
she met him. Several weeks later she learned that in one of these 
"burials" he had worn yellow silk pajamas. Jan had forgotten this, 
but Dr. Frank Sweet, of Long Beach, who had overseen the pro- 



cedure, remembered the pajamas, and how they had been ruined 
by mud. 

Craig saw a vision of a bride, at a time when Jan, In his room 
in a far part of the city, was awakening from sleep with a dream 
about a friend's wedding. On two occasions, while * 'concentrating/' 
she got the impression that Jan and a friend of his had returned 
unexpectedly from Santa Barbara to Hollywood. In both cases she 
made careful record, and it turned out to be correct; I have a written 
statement of the two young men, confirming the second instance, 
and saying that it could not have been normally known to my wife. 

I have also a detailed record some twenty pages long of a 
"clairvoyant" vision of Jan's movements about the city of Long 
Beach, including his parking of a car, carrying something over his 
arm, visiting a barber-shop and a flower-shop, and stopping and 
hesitating and then going on. The record includes a detailed 
description of the streets and their lay-out, a one-story white build- 
ing, etc. Jan had been doing all this at approximately the time 
specified. He had carried his trousers to a tailorshop, with a barber- 
shop directly opposite; he had stopped in front of a flower-shop and 
debated whether to buy some flowers; he had taken a letter to be 
copied by a typist, and had stopped on the street, hesitating as to 
whether to wait for this copying to be done. All these details he 
narrated to my wife before he knew what was in her written record. 

Another curious experience: I took Jan to the home of Dr. 
John R, Haynes of Los Angeles, to give a demonstration of his mind- 
reading. Jan said he felt ill, and would not be succesful. Only one 
or two of the tests succeeded. But meanwhile my wife was at home, 
concentrating, and ordering her subconscious mind to show her 
what Jan and I were doing. When I returned I found that she had 
written a detailed description of Dr. Haynes' home, including a 
correct ground plan of the entrance hall, stairs and drawing-room, 
and a description of the color and style of decorations, furniture, 
lamps, vases, etc., in good part correct. Craig has never been in this 

Jan goes into one of his deep states a cataleptic trance, he calls 
itin which his body is rigid and cold. He has the power to fix in 
advance the time when he will come out of the trance, and his 
subconscious mind apparently possesses the power to keep track of 


time days, hours, minutes, even seconds. 1 have seen him amaze 
a group of scientists by coming out on the second, while they held 
stop-watches on him. 

But now my wife thinks she will vary this procedure. Jan goes 
into the trance in our home and Craig sits and silently wills, "Your 
right leg will come out; you will lift it; you will put it down again. 
You will sit erect" and so on. Without speaking a word, she can 
make him do whatever she pleases. 

Another incident, quite a long one. I ask you to have patience 
with the details, promising that in the end you will see what it is all 
about. I am in the next room, and I hear Jan and my wife having 
one of their regular evening arguments, because he will not tell her 
how he does this or that; at one moment he insists that he has told 
her and the next moment he insists that he does not know. My 
wife finally asks him to concentrate upon an object in the room, and 
she will see if she can "get" it. He selects the gas stove, in which a 
fire is burning; and Craig says, "I see a lot of little flames." Jan 
insists that is "no good," she didn't get the stove; which annoys 
her very much she thinks he does not want to allow any success to 
a woman. He is a "continental male," something she makes fierce 
feminist war upon. 

Craig is suffering from neuralgia in neck and shoulder, and 
Jan offers to treat her. He will use what he calls "magnetism"; he 
believes there is an emanation from his finger-tips, and so, with his 
two forefingers he lightly traces the course of the nerves of her neck 
and shoulder and arm. For ten or fifteen minutes his two fingers 
are tracing patterns in front of her. 

Then it is time for him to go home, and he is unhappy, and she 
succeeds in drawing the explanation from him he has to walk, and 
his shoes are tight and hurt him. He has to have them stretched, he 
tells her. She offers him a pair of my big tennis shoes to wear home, 
and then she scolds him because he has the fashionable notion that 
white canvas tennis shoes are not proper footwear for eleven o'clock 
in the evening. Finally he puts them on and departs; and my wife 
lies down and makes her mind a blank, and orders it to tell her 
what Jan is doing. 

She has a pencil and paper, and presently she is writing words. 
They are foreign words, and she thinks they must be in Jan's native 


language; they come drifting through her mind for several minutes. 
Next day comes Jan for the daily lesson, and she shows him this 
record. He tells her that the words are not in his language, but 
German-which he knows, but never uses. My wife knows no 
German; except possibly sauerkraut and kindergarten. But here 
she has written a string of German and near-German words. I have 
the original sheet before me, and I give it as well as I can make out 
the scrawl: "ei einfinen ein-fe-en swenfenz fingen sweizzen czie ofen 
weizen ofen fingen swienfen swei fingern efein boden fienzen 
meifen bogen feingen Bladen Meichen frefen eifein." 

Some of this is nonsense; but there are a few German words in 
it, and others which are guesses at German words, such as might be 
made by a person hearing a strange language, and trying to set down 
what he hears. Part of the effort seems to be concentrated on getting 
one expression, "zwe Fmgern"~two fingers! You remember the 
two fingers moving up and down over Craig's neck and shoulder! 
And "Ofen" the argument about the stove! And "bladen" to 
stretch shoes over a block of wood. Where these ideas came from 
seems plain enough. But where did the German come from unless 
from the subconscious mind of Jan? 

A further detail, especially curious. Jan gave my wife the 
meaning for the word "bladen": "to stretch shoes over a block of 
wood"; I have the memo which he wrote at the time. But looking 
up the word in the dictionaries, I do not find it, nor can I find any 
German who knows it. Apparently there is no such word; and this 
would clearly seem to indicate that my wife got her German from 
Jan. If so, it was by telepathy, for he spoke no word of it that 

It is the fashion among young ladies of the South to tease the 
men; and Craig found in this episode a basis for tormenting her 
psychic instructor. He had assured his patient that during the 
treatment he was sending her "curative thoughts/' But what kind 
of telepathic healer was it who sent gas-stoves and shoe-blocks into 
a neuralgic shoulder? Jan, missing the humor, and trying to save 
his reputation, declared that he hated the German language so 
greatly, he did not even allow himself to think in it! Germany 
was associated in his mind with the most painful memories, and 
all that previous day he had been fighting depression caused by 



these memories. You see, in this blundering defense, a significant 
bit of evidence. Jan had really had the German language in his 
thoughts at the time Craig got theml 

I have before me a letter from Jan to my wife, postmarked 
Santa Barbara, October 19, 1927. He says: "May these lovely 
Cosmos bring you such peace and contentment as they have brought 
me." He has cut a double slit in the paper, and inserted cosmos 
blossoms and violets. Prior to the receipt of this letter, my wife 
was making the record of a dream, and here is what she wrote down: 
"I dreamed Jan had a little basket of flowers, pink roses and violets, 
shaped like this." (A drawing.) "He lifted them up and said they 
were for me, but a girl near him took them and said, 'But I want 
them' " When Jan came to see us again, my wife asked about the 
circumstance, and learned the following: a woman friend, who 
had given Jan the flowers, had accused him of meaning to send 
them to a girl; but he had answered that they were for "a middle- 
aged and distinguished lady/' 

Fig. 13 

Fig, 13a 


I present here the basket of "pink roses and violets" which my 
wife drew, and then the spray of pink double cosmos and violets 
which met her eyes when she opened the young "psychic's" letter a 
day or two later. I explain that my wife's drawing (Fig. 13) is partly 
written over by the words of her notes; while in Jan's letter the 
violets had to be at once traced in pencil, as they would not last. My 
wife drew pencil marks around them and wrote the word "violet" 
in three places, to indicate what the marks meant. The cosmos 
flowers, pressed and dried, are still exactly as Jan stuck them into 
position and as they remained until I took them to be photographed 
(Fig. ISa). 

XJLS I have said, I hesitate to tell about incidents such as these. 
They are hard to believe, and the skeptic may say that my wife 
was hypnotized by Jan, and made to believe them. But it happens 
that Craig has been able to establish exactly the same rapport with 
her husband, who has never had anything to do with hypnosis, 
except to watch it a few times. A Socialist "muck-raker/* much 
wrapped up in his job, the husband sits and reads, or revises manu- 
script, while the wife works her white magic upon his mind. Sud- 
denly his train of thought is broken by an exclamation; the wife 
has "willed" him to do such and soand he has done it! Or maybe 
she has been asleep, and come out with the tail end of a dream, and 
has written down what appears to be a lot of rubbish but turns 
out to be a reproduction of something the husband has been read- 
ing or writing at that very moment! Hear one or two instances of 
such events, all written down at the time. 

Colonel Lindbergh has flown to France, but Craig does not 
know much about it, because she is not reading the papers, she is 
asking, "What is life?'' A year passes, and in the mail I receive a 
monthly magazine, the Lantern,, published by Sacco-Vanzetti sym- 
pathizers in Boston. I open it, and find an article by a young radical, 
assailing Lindbergh because he does not follow in his father's foot- 
steps; his father was a radical congressman, but now the son allows 
himself to be used by the army and navy people, and by the capital- 
ist press, to distract the minds of the masses from social justice. So 
runs the charge; and before 1 am through reading it, my wife comes 
downstairs from a nap. "What are you reading?" she asks, and I 
answer: "Something about Lindbergh." Says my wife: "Here are 
my notes about a dream I just had." She hands me a sheet of paper, 
I have it before me now as I write, and I give it with misspelling 
and abbreviations exactly as she wrote it in a hurry, not anticipating 
that it would ever become public: 

" 'I do not believe that Lindberg flew across the ocean in order 



to take a ransome from a foreign gov as well as from his own. Nor 
in order to induce the nations of the earth to a war in the air/ 
Words which were in my mind as 1 awoke from nap on aft May 25." 

I should add that my wife had had no opportunity to look 
at the Boston magazine, whether consciously or unconsciously. She 
tells me that Lindbergh had not been in her conscious mind for a 
long time, and she had no remotest idea that the radicals were 
attacking him. 

Another instance: I am reading the latest "book of the month," 
which has just come in the mail, and to which my wife has paid no 
attention. She interrupts me with a question: "Are there any 
flowers in what you are reading?" 1 answer, "Yes," and she says: 
"I have been trying to concentrate, and I keep seeing flowers. I 
have drawn them." She hands me two drawings (Figs. 14a, 14b): 

The book was Mumford's Herman Melville, and I was at page 
346, a chapter entitled, "The Flowering Aloe." On this page are 
six lines from a poem called "The American Aloe on Exhibition." 


w \ 

Fig. 14a Fig. 14b 

On the preceding page is a discussion of the habits of this plant. 
While my wife was making the left-hand drawing (Fig. 14a), I had 
been reading page 344: "the red clover had blushed through the 
fields about their house"; and "he would return home with a hand- 
ful of clover blossoms." 

Of experiences like this there have been many. Important as 
the subject is, I find it a bother, because I am called upon to listen 
to long narratives of dreams and telepathy, while my mind is on 
Sacco and Vanzetti, or the Socialist presidential campaign, or what- 
ever it is. Sometimes the messages from the subconscious are com- 
plicated and take patience to disentangle. Consider, for example, 
a little drawing (Fig. 15) one of nearly three hundred which this 


Hg. IS Fig. I5a 

long-suffering husband has made for his witch-wife to reproduce 
by telepathy: a football, you see, neatly laced up. In her drawing 
(Fig. 15a) Craig gets the general effect perfectly, but she puts it on 
a calf. Her written comment was: "Belly-band on calf.** 

While Craig was making this particular experiment, her hus- 
band was reading a book; and now, wishing to solve the mystery, 
she asks, "What are you reading?** The husband replies, wearily: 
"DeKruif s Hunger Fighters, page 283.** "What does it deal with?*' 
"It is a treatise on the feeding of cows.** "Really?" says Craig. 
"Will you please write that down for me and sign it?*' 

But why did the cow become a calf? That, too, is something 
to be explained. Says Craig: "Do you remember what I used to tell 
you about old Mr. Bebb and his calves?*' Yes, the husband knows 
the story of the half -crazy old Welshman, who thirty or forty years 
ago was the caretaker of the Kimbrough summer home on the 
Mississippi Sound. Old Mr. Bebb made his hobby the raising of 
calves by hand, and turning them into parlor pets. He would teach 
them to use his three fingers as a nursing bottle, and would make 
fancy embroidered belly-bands for them, and tie them up in these. 
So to the subconscious mind which was once little Mary Craig 
Kimbrough of Mississippi, the idea of a calf sewed up like a football 
is one of the most natural in the world. 

Since my wife and I have no secrets from each other, it does 
not trouble me that she is able to see what I am doing. While I am 
away from home, she will "concentrate" upon me, and immediately 
afterwards write out what she "sees." On one occasion she described 
to me a little red book which I had got in the mail at the office. 
By way of establishing just what kind of book she had "seen/* she 
had gone to my bookcase and picked out a French dictionary and 
it happened that I had just received the Italian dictionary of that 


same series, uniform in binding. On another occasion, while mak- 
ing a study of dream-material, she wrote out a dream about being 
lost in long and involved concrete corridors while I was trying to 
find my way through the locker-rooms of a Y. M. C. A. basement, 
running into one blind passage after another, and being much an- 
noyed by doors that wouldn't open. 

Dreams, you understand, are products of subconscious activity, 
and to watch them is one method of proving telepathy. By practice 
Craig has learned to lie passive, immediately after awakening, and 
trace back a long train of dreams. Here is one of the results, a story 
worth telling in detail save that I fear you will refuse to believe it 
after it is told. 

On the afternoon of January 30, 1928, 1 was playing tennis on 
the courts of the Virginia Hotel, in Long Beach, California, and 
my wife was taking a nap. She did not know that I was playing 
tennis, and has no knowledge about the places where I play. She 
takes no interest in the game, regarding it as a foolish business 
which will some day cause her husband to drop dead of heart failure 
and she declines to be present on the occasion. When I entered 
the house, she said: "I woke up with a long involved dream, and 
it seemed so absurd I didn't want to write it out, but I did so." 
Here are the opening sentences verbatim: 

"Dreamed I was on a pier, watching a'new kind of small, one 
or two seated sport-boat, a little water car into which a woman got 
and was shot by machinery from the pier out to the water, where 
she skidded around a minute or two and was drawn back to the pier. 
With us on the pier were my sister and child, and two young men 
in white with white caps. These appeared to be in charge of this 
new sport-boat. This boat is not really a boat. It is a sort of minia- 
ture car. I've never seen anything like it. Short, so that only one 
or two people could sit in it. An amusement thing, belonging to 
the pier. The two young men were intensely interested, and stood 
close together watching it out on the water," etc., etc. 

Understand that this dream was not supposed to have any- 
thing to do with me. It was before Craig had come to realize the 
state of rapport with me; she had not been thinking about me, and 
when she told me about this dream, she had no thought that any 


part of it had come from my mind. But here is what I told her 
about my afternoon: 

The Virginia Hotel courts are close to what is called "The 
Pike/' and there is an amusement pier just across the way, and on 
it a so-called "Ferris wheel/' with little cars exactly like the descrip- 
tion, which go up into the air with people in them. That afternoon 
it happened that the tennis courts were crowded, so my partner and 
I waited out a set or two. We sat on a bench, in white tennis suits 
and hats, and watched this wheel, and the cars which went up in 
the air, and at a certain point took a slide on long rods, which made 
them "skid around/' and caused the women in them to scream with 
excitement. Underneath the pier was the ocean, plainly visible 
along with the little cars. 

(Footnote, 1962: The hotel and the Pike no longer exist, so 
do not waste your time trying to verify all this.) 

I should also mention the case of our friend, Mrs. Kate Crane- 
Gartz, with whom there is a rapport which my wife does not tell her 
about. My wife will say to me, "Mrs. Gartz is going to phone," and 
in a minute or two the phone will ring. She will say, "Mrs. Gartz 
is coming. She wants me to go to Los Angeles with her." Of course, 
a good deal of guessing might be possible, in the case of two inti- 
mate friends. But consider such guessing as this: My wife had a 
dream of an earthquake and wrote it down. Soon thereafter oc- 
curred this conversation with Mrs. Gartz. I heard it, and my wife 
recorded it immediately afterwards, and I quote her written record: 

"Mrs. Gartz dreamed of earthquake. 'Wasn't it queer that I 
dreamed of swaying slowly from side to side.' 

" 'I dreamed the same/ I said. "But I was in a high building.' " 

" 'So was I/ she replied." 

Craig calls attention to the word "slowly," as both she and Mrs. 
Gartz commented on this. They didn't believe that an earthquake 
would behave that way; but I pointed out that it would happen just 
so with a steel-frame building. 


JL come now to a less fantastic and more convincing series o 
experiments; those made with the husband of my wife's younger 
sister, Robert L. Irwin. Eight years ago the doctors gave Bob only 
a few months to live, on account of tuberculosis. Needless to say, 
he has much time on his hands, waiting for the doctors' clairvoyance 
to be verified. He proved to be a good "subject" the best of all in 
the tests with Jan. One day in our home, a series of five tests were 
made, with Bob holding an object in mind, while sitting several 
feet away from Jan. The latter found the object, and made the cor- 
rect disposition of it, as willed by Bob, in four out of the five trials. 
This included such unlikely things as picking up a striped blanket 
and wrapping it about my shoulders. 

Bob and Craig made the arrangement that at a certain hour 
each day, Bob, in his home in Pasadena, was to take pencil and paper 
and make a drawing of an object, and sit and concentrate his mind 
upon that drawing. At the same hour Craig, in our home in Long 
Beach, forty miles away, was to go Into her state o "concentration," 
and give orders to her subconscious mind to find out what was in 
Bob's mind. The drawings were to be dated, and filed, and when 
the two of them met, they would compare the results, in the presence 
of myself and Bob's wife. If there should turn out to be a corre- 
spondence between the drawings, greater than could be attributed 
to chance, it would be evidence of telepathy, as good as any that 
could be imagined or desired. 

The results were such as to make me glad that it was another 
person than myself, so as to afford a disinterested witness to these 
matters, so difficult of belief. I repeat that Bob is a young American 
business man, priding himself on having no "crank" ideas; he has 
had a Socialist brother-in-law for ten years or more without being 
in the slightest degree affected in manners, morals, or convictions. 
Here is his first drawing, done on a half sheet of green paper. The 
word "CHAIR" underneath, and the date, were written by Bob, 




while the words "drawn by Bob Irwin" were added for purposes of 
record by Craig (Fig. 16): 

Fig. 16a 

Fig. 16 

And now for Craig's results. I give her report verbatim, with 
the two drawings which are part of her text: 

"At 10 o'clock or a little before, while sewing (without effort) 
I saw Bob take something from black sideboard think it was the 
glass candlestick. At 11:15 (I concentrate now) I saw Bob sitting 
at dining room table a dish or some small object in front of him 
(on N. E. corner table). I try to see the object on table see white 
something at last. I can't decide what it is so I concentrate on seeing 
his drawing on a green paper as it is about 11:20 now and I think 
he has made his drawing. I try hard to see what he has drawn try 
to see a paper with a drawing on it, and see a straight chair. Am 
not sure of second drawing. It does not seem to be on his paper. 
It may be his bed-foot. I distinctly see a chair like 1st on his paper." 
(Fig. 16a.) 

When Bob and my wife discussed the above test, she learned 
that he had sat at the northeast corner of the table, trying to decide 
what to draw, and facing the sideboard on which were silver candle- 
sticks. Later he went to his bedroom and lay down, gazing through 
the foot of his bed at the chair which he had taken as his model for 
the drawing. The bed has white bars running vertically, as in my 



wife's second drawing. The chair, like Bob's drawing, has the strips 
of wood supporting the back running crossways, and this feature is 
reproduced in Craig's first drawing. Her report goes on to add 
that she sees a star and some straight lines, which she draws; they 
are horizontal parallel lines, as in the back of the chair. The back 
of the chair Bob had looked at had a carved star upon it. 

The second attempt was the next day, and Bob drew his watch 
(Fig. 17). Craig first drew a chair, and then wrote, "But do not 
feel it is correct." Then she drew the following (Fig. 17a): 

Fig. 17 

Fig. I7a 

The comment was: "I see this picture. Later I think it is not 
flower but wire (metal, shining). The 'petals' are not petals but 
wire, and should be uniform. This is hasty drawing so not exact as 
seen. What I mean is, I try to see Bob's drawing and not what he 
drew from. So I see no flower but shape of one on paper. Then de- 
cide it is of wire, but this may be merely because I see drawing, 
which would have no flower color. However, I see it shining as 
if it is metal. Later a glass circle." Drawings then show an ellipse, 
and then a drinking glass and a glass pitcher. It is interesting to 
note that Bob had in front of him a glass bowl with gold-fish. 

The next day Bob drew a pair of scissors (Fig. 18): 



The drawings of Craig follow without comment (Figs. 18a, 


Three days later Bob drew the table fork, which has already 
been reproduced (Fig. 1), and Craig made the report which has 
been given in facsimile (Fig. la): "See a table fork. Nothing else." 

One more test between Bob and Craig, the most sensational 
of all. It is quite a story, and I have to ask your pardon for the 
medical details involved. So much vital knowledge hangs upon 
these tests that I have asked my brother-in-law to forget his personal 
feelings. The reader will please consider himself a medical student 
or hospital nurse for the moment. 


The test occurred July 11, 1928. My wife made her drawing, 
and then told me about the matter at once. Also she wrote out all 
the details and the record Is now before me. She saw a feather, then 
a flower spray, and then she heard a scream. Her first thought In 
case of illness or danger is her aged parents, and she took It for her 
mother's voice, and this so excited her that she lost interest in the 
experiment. But soon she concentrated again, and drew a series 
of concentric circles, with a heavy black spot in the center. Then 
she saw another and much larger spot, and this began to spread and 
cover the sheet of paper. At the same time came a feeling of intense 
depression, and Craig decided that the black spot was blood, and 
that Bob had had a hemorrhage. Here is her drawing (Fig. 19a): 

Two or three days later Bob's wife drove him to our home, 
and in the presence of all four of us he produced the drawing he 
had made. He had taken a compass and drawn a large circle; mak- 
ing, of course, a hole in the center of the paper. "Is that all you 
thought of during the time?" asked my wife. "No," said Bob, "but 
I'd hate to have you get the rest of it." "What was it?" "Well, I dis- 
covered that I had a hemorrhoid, and couldn't put my mind on any- 
thing else but the thought, 'My God, my lungs-my kidneys-and 
now this!' " 

A hemorrhoid is, of course, apt to be acompanied by a hemor- 
rhage; and it seems clear that my wife got the mood of depression 


of her brother-in-law, his thoughts of blood and bodily breakdown, 
as well as the circle and the hole in the paper. There is another 
detail which does not appear in the written record, but is fixed in 
my memory. My wife said: "I wanted to draw a little hill." Upon 
hearing that, I called up a physician friend who is interested in 
these tests, and asked him what a drawing of a hemorrhoid would 
look like, and he agreed that "a little hill" was about as near as 
one could come. I hope you will note that this particular drawing 
test is supported by the testimony of four different persons, my 
wife, her sister, the sister's husband, and myself. I do not see how 
there could possibly be more conclusive evidence of telepathic 
influence unless you suspect all four of us of a series of stupid and 
senseless falsehoods. Let me repeat that Bob and his wife have 
read this manuscript and certified to its correctness so far as con- 
cerns them. The comment written by my wife reads: "All this 
dark like a stain feel it is blood; that Bob is ill more than usual/' 
(Note: Bob Irwin died not long afterwards.) 


JLhe experiments just described were all that were done with 
Bob, because he found them a strain. Craig asked me to make some 
drawings for her, and I did so, sitting in the next room, some thirty 
feet away, but always behind a closed door. Thus you may verify my 
assertion that the telepathic energy, whatever it may be, knows no 
difference between thirty feet and forty miles. The results with 
Bob and with myself were about the same. 

The first drawings made with me are those which have already 
been given (Figs. 2, 2a), but I give them again for the sake of con- 
venience. I explain that in these particular drawings the lines have 
been traced over in heavier pencil; the reason being that Craig 
wanted a carbon copy, and went over the lines in order to make it. 
This had the effect of making them heavier than they originally 
were, and it made the whirly lines in Craig's first drawing more 
numerous than they should be. She did this in the case of two or 
three of the early drawings, wishing to send a report to a friend. I 
pointed out to her how this would weaken their value as evidence, 
so she never did it again. 

After my wife and I had compared the above drawings, she 
wrote a note to the effect that just before starting to concentrate, she 
had been looking at her drawing of many concentric circles, which 
she had made in a test with Bob the previous day (Fig. 19a). So her 
first vision was of a whirl of circles. This turned sideways, and then 
took the shape of an arrowhead, and then of a letter A, and finally 
evolved into a complete star. As the agent in this test, I wish to 
repeat that I made my drawing in my study with the door closed, 
that I kept the drawing before my eyes the entire time, and that 
the door stayed closed until Craig called that she was through. 

I do not find it easy to concentrate on a drawing, because my 
active mind wanders off to side issues. If I draw a lighted cigarette, 
I immediately think of the odious advertising now appearing in the 
papers; or I think: "Will Craig get this right, and what does it 




mean, and will the world accept evidence on this subject from me?" 
and so on. Several times my wife has "got" such thoughts, and so 
we took to noting them on the record. On July 29, 1 drew a cigar- 
ette, with two little curls for smoke, each running off like a string 
of the letter "eeeee," written by hand. Underneath I wrote as 
follows: "My thought: 'cigarette with curls of smoke/ I said to 
myself these words: 'she got the curls but not the cigarette/ " This 
would appear to be telepathy coming from Craig to me, for her 
drawing was found to contain a lot of different curves a curly 
capital S, several other half circles twisted together, and three ??? 
one inside the other. She added the following words: "I can't draw 
it, but curls of some sort/' 


Again, here is a work of art from my facile pen, dated July 21, 
and having underneath my notation: "Concentrated on bald 
head" (Fig. 20) 

Fig. 20 

My wife's note was: "Saw Upton's face." Then she drew a line 
through the words, and wrote the following explanation: "Saw 
two half circles. Then they came together making full circle. But 
I felt uncertain as to whether they belonged together or not. Then 
suddenly saw Upton's profile float across vision/' 

July 20 I drew a three-pronged fork, and made the note that I 
was not sure if it was a hay-fork or an oyster-fork, and decided it was 
the latter, whereupon my mind went off to "society" people and 
their many kinds of forks. Craig wrote: "I thought it was an ani- 
mal's head with horns and the head was on a long stick a trophy 
mounted like this" and she drew a two-pronged fork. 

July 171 drew a large round stone with a smaller stone on top: 
at least so I thought, and then decided they were two eggs. Craig 
drew two almost tangent circles, and wrote: "I see two round 
things, not one inside the other, as in Bob's drawing of circles. Then 
the above vanished and I saw as below" and she drew four little 
oblongs, tangent, which might be a cluster of fish-eggs or fly-eggs. 

July 20 I drew two heavy straight lines making a capital letter 
T, and Craig drew a complete cross or square X, which is, of course, 
the T with vertical arm prolonged. July 14 I drew a sort of jack- 
lantern. It is on next page (Fig. 21). I looked at this drawing and 
thought of the eyes of M.C.S., and said mentally, "I should have 
drawn the curves over eyes." Afterwards I told Craig about this, 



Fig. 21 

and she noted it down on the drawing. On the reverse side of the 
sheet she added the following: "I told U. it was shaped like a half 
moon with something in center I supposed it must be a star, 
though I did not see it as star but as indistinct marks." Her draw- 
ing follows, turned upside down for greater convenience (Fig. 2 la) : 

Fig. 2U 

,/jL new method of experiment invented itself by accident; 
and makes perhaps the strangest story yet. There came a letter from 
a clergyman in South Africa, saying that he was sending me a copy 
of his wife's novel dealing with South African life. I get many letters 
from strangers, and answer politely, and as a rule forget them 
quickly. Some time afterwards came two volumes, entitled, 
"Patricia, by Marcus Romondt," and I did not associate them with 
the clergyman's letter. I glanced at the preface, and saw that the 
work had something to do with the religious cults of the South 
African natives. I didn't read more than twenty lines just enough 
to classify the book as belonging in Craig's department. Everything 
having to do with philosophy, psychology, religion and medicine is 
first read by her, and then fed back to me in her eager discourses. 
I took the volumes home and laid them on her table, saying, "This 
may interest you." The remark attracted no special attention, for 
the reason that I bring her a book, or a magazine, or some clippings 
at least once a day. She did not touch these volumes, nor even glance 
at the title while I was in the room. 

I went into the kitchen to get some lunch, and when it was 
ready I called, "Are you going to eat?" "Let me alone," she said, 
"I am writing a story." That also is a common experience. I ate 
my lunch in silence, and then came into the living room again, and 
there was Craig, absorbed in writing. Some time later she came to 
me, exclaiming, "Oh, I have had the most marvelous idea for a 
story! Something just flashed over me, something absolutely novel 
I never heard anything like it. I have a whole synopsis. Do you 
want to hear it?" "No," I said, "you had better go and eat" for it 
was my job to try to keep her body on earth. "I can't eat now," she 
said, "I am too excited. I'll read a while and get quiet." So she 
went to her couch, and there was a minute or two of silence, and 
then an exclamation: "Come here!" 

Craig had picked up one of the two volumes from South 



Africa, and was staring at it. "Look at this!" she said. "Look what 
I opened to!" I looked at a page in the middle of the book she has 
the devilish habit of reading a book that way and in the center of 
the page, in capital letters, I read the words: "THE BLACK 
MAGICIAN/' "What about it?" I said. "Did you ever hear of that 
idea?" asked Craig. I answered that I had, and she said, "Well, I 
never did. I thought it was my own. It is the theme of the 'story* 
I have just been writing. I have made a synopsis of a wHble chapter 
in this book, and without ever having touched it!" 

So Craig had a new set of experiments to try all by herself, 
without bothering her busy husband. She would go to one of my 
bookcases, with which she had hitherto had nothing to do, since 
her own books are kept in her own place. With her back to the 
bookcase, she would draw a book, and take it to her couch and lie 
down, placing the book upon her solar plexus, and taking every pre- 
caution to make sure that it never came into her line of vision. Most 
of the books, being new, were in their paper jackets, so there was 
no lettering that could be felt with her fingers. This, you note, is 
not a test of telepathy, for no human mind knew what particular 
book Craig's hand had fallen upon. If she could tell anything about 
the contents of that book, it would appear to be clairvoyance, or 
what is known as "psychometry." 

My books are oddly varied in character. There are new novels, 
and works of history, biography, travel and economics. In addition, 
there are what I call "crank books"; the queerly assorted volumes 
which are destined by donors all over the world to convert me to 
vegetarianism, antivivisection, anarchism, Mormonism, Moham- 
medanism, infanticide, the abolition of money, or the doctrine 
that alopecia is caused by onanism. Believe me, the person who 
sets out to guess the contents of the books that come to me in the 
course of a month has his or her hands full! 

But Craig was able to do it. She did it on so many occasions 
that she would sit and stare at me and exclaim, "Now what do you 
make of that? 9 She would insist that I sit and watch the process, so 
as to be able to state that she never had the book in her line of vision. 
In my presence she picked out a volume, and, keeping it hidden 
from both of us, she said, "I see a blue cover, with a rising sun and 


a bare landscape." It happened to be a volume circulated by the 
followers of "Pastor Russell," and as the preface tells me that 1,405,- 
000 have been sold, it may be that you too have it in your library. 
The title is Deliverence, by J. F. Rutherford, and it has a blue 
cloth cover, with a gold design of a sun rising behind a mass of 
clouds and a globe. 

On another occasion Craig wrote: "One big eye, with nothing 
else distinct then lines or spikes came around it, or maybe these 
project from the head like stiff long hairs, or eye-lashes. Can't tell 
what kind of head but feel it must be a tropical something, tho 
the eye looks human/' etc. The book was Mr. Blettsworthy on 
Rampole Island, by H. G. Wells, and in this book is a chapter 
headed, "The Friendly Eye," with the following sentences: "I 
became aware that an Eye observed me continually. ... It was a 
reddish brown eye. It looked out from a system of bandages that 
also projected a huge shock of brown hair upward and a great chest- 
nut beard . . . the eye watched me with the illuminating but ex- 
pressionless detachment of a head-lamp Polyhemus, for that was 

my private name for the man." 

A long string of such surprises! Craig picked up a book and 
wrote: "Black wings a vampire flying by night." The title of 
the book was The Devil's Jest. She picked up one and wrote: "A 
Negro's head with a light around it." It is a German volume, called 
"Africa Singt," and has a big startling design exactly as described. 
She picked up a book by Leon Trotsky, and wrote the word 
"Checkro" which may not sound like Russian to Trotsky, but does 
to Craig! And a book with Mussolini on the cover, wearing a black 
coat and feeding a lion: she got the shape of the Duce's figure, only 
she labeled him "Black Bird." And here is a part of the jacket 
design of "wings" on the "Literary Guild" books and below is 
what Craig made of it. She added the comment: "Motion-the thing 
is traveling, point first (Fig. 22, 22a): 



Fig. 22a 

Another volume was described as follows: "A pale blue book. 
Lonely prairie country, stretch o flat land against sky, and out- 
lined against it a procession of people. Had feeling of moving- 
wheeled vehicle which seemed to be baby-carriage. This was 
strange, because country was covered with snow." Upon examina- 
tion, the book proved to be bound in mottled pale blue boards, 
title, "I'm Scairt," with subtitle, "Childhood Days on the Prairies." 
On the first page of the preface occurs the following: "It was in 
those days that a company of Swedes left their beloved homeland 
in the far North and came to make a home for themselves and their 
children on the Kansas prairie." 

Finally, I have obtained the publisher's consent to reproduce 
the jacket design of a recent book, so that I may put Craig's telepa- 
thy alongside it, and give you a laugh or two. Observe the jolly 
little tourists, and what they have turned into! And then the efforts 
of Craig's subconscious mind at French. They taught it to her in 
a "finishing school" on Fifth Avenue, and you can see that it was 
finished before it began (Figs. 23, 23a). 

Yet another form of experiment invented itself under the 
pressure of necessity. Impossible to have such a witch-wife without 
trying to put her to use! 



of frencnm- 

ky. lewis galantiere 

& tlarkeJ U 

Fig, 23 

Fig. 23a 

I have the habit of working out a chapter of a new book in 
my head, and writing down a few notes on a scrap of paper, and 
sticking it away in any place that is handy; then, next day, or when- 
ever I am ready for work, it is gone, and there is the devil to pay. 
I wander about the house for an hour or two, trying to imagine 
where I can have put that scrap of paper, and reluctant to do the 
work all over again. On one occasion I searched every pocket, my 
desk, the trash-baskets, and then, deciding that I had dropped it 
outdoors, where I work with my typewriter, I figured the direction 


of the wind, and picked up all the scraps of paper I saw decorating 
the landscape of our beach home. Then I decided It must be In a 
manuscript which I had given to a friend In Los Angeles, and I 
was about to phone to that friend, when Craig asked what the trou- 
ble was, and said, "Come, let's make an experiment. Lie down here, 
and describe the paper to me." 

I told her, a sheet off a little pad, written on both sides, and 
folded once. She took my hand, and went into her state of concen- 
tration, and said, "It is in the pocket of a gray coat." I answered, 
"Impossible; I have searched every coat in the house half a dozen 
times." She said, "It is in a pocket, and I will get it." She got up 
off the couch, and went to a gray coat of mine, and in a pocket I 
had somehow overlooked, there was the paperl Let me add that 
Craig had had nothing to do with my clothing in the interim, and 
had never seen the paper, nor heard o it until I began roaming 
about the house, grumbling and fussing. Neither of us know o 
any "normal" way by which her subconscious mind could have 
got this information. 

My secretary lost two screw-caps of the office typewriter, and 
I said to my wife, "I will bring him over, and you see if you can 
tell him where to look." But my wife was ill, and did not want to 
meet any one, so she said, "I will see if I can get it through you." 
Be it understood, Craig has not been in the office In a year, and 
has met my secretary only casually. She said, "I see him standing 
up at his typewriting." That is an unusual thing for a typist to do, 
but it happened to be true. Said Craig: "He has put the screw-caps 
on something high. They are in the south room, above the level 
of any table or desk." I went to the phone to ask my secretary, and 
learned that he had just found the screws, which he had put on 
top of a window-sash in the south room. 

The third incident requires the statement that, a few months 
back, while my wife was away, our home had been loaned to friends, 
and I had camped at the little house which I was using as an office. 
Some medical apparatus had been left there; at least I had a vague 
impression that I had had it there, and I said, "I'll go and look." 
Said Craig: "Let's try an experiment." She took my hand, and 
told me to make my mind a blank, and presently she said, "I see it 


under the kitchen sink/' I went over to the office, and found the 
object, not under the sink, but under the north end of the bathtub. 
I took it back to the house, and before I spoke a word, my wife 
said: "I tried to get you on the phone. I concentrated again, and 
saw the thing and wrote it out." She gave me a slip of paper, from 
which I copy: "Down under something, wrapped in paper on 
N. side of room under laundry tub on floor or under bath tub 
on floor in N. corner." 

You may say, of course, if you are an incurable skeptic: "The 
man's wife had been over to the office and seen the object; she had 
been searching his pockets, and had seen the paper." Craig is posi- 
tive that she did nothing of the sort; but of course it is conceivable 
that she may have done it and then forgotten it. Therefore, I pass 
on to a different and more acceptable kind of evidence a set of 
drawing tests, in which I watched and checked every step of the 
proceedings at my wife's insistence. Here again I am a co-equal 
witness with her, and the skeptic has no alternative but to say that 
the two of us have contrived this elaborate hoax, making nearly 
three hundred drawings with fake reproductions, in order to get 
notoriety, or to sell a few books. I really hope nobody will say that 
is possible. Very certainly I could sell more books with less trouble 
by writing what the public wants; and if I were a dishonest man, 
I should not have waited until the age of fifty-one to begin such 
a career. 


3ncerning these drawings, there are preliminary explana- 
tions to be made. They were done hastily, by two busy people. 
Neither is a trained artist, and our ability to convey what we wish 
is limited. When I start on a giraffe, I manage to produce a pretty 
good neck, but when I get to the body, I am disturbed to note it 
turning into a sheep or a donkey. When I draw a monkey climbing 
a tree, and Craig says, "Buffalo or lion, tiger wild animal" I have 
to admit that may be so; likewise when my limb of a tree is called a 
"trumpet/* or when Craig's "wild animal" resembles a chorus girl's 
legs. I will let you see those particular drawings. Figure 24 is mine, 
while 24a and 24b are my wife's. 

Fig. 24a 

Fig. 24t> 



Again, I draw a volcano in eruption, and my wife calls it a 
black beetle, which hardly sounds like a triumphant success; but 
study the drawings, and you see that my black smoke happens to 
be the shape of a beetle, while the two sides of the volcano serve 
very well for the long feelers of an insect (Figs. 25, 25a): 

Fig. 25 Fig. 25a 

The tests began with four series of drawings, 38 in all, made 
by my secretary. Following these were^Sl series drawn by myself, 
comprising J^JL separate drawings. \ Each drawing would be 
wrapped in an extra sheet of paper, and sealed in a separate 
envelope, and the envelopes handed to my wife when she was ready 
for the tests. She would put them on the table by her couch, and 
lie down, putting the first envelope, unopened, over her solar 
plexus, covered by her hand. Her head would be lying back on 
a pillow, eyes closed, and head at such an angle that nothing but 
the ceiling could be seen if the eyes were open. A dim light to 
avoid sense stimulation; enough light to see everything plainly. 
When she had what she judged was the right image, she would 
take a pad and pencil and make the drawing or write the descrip- 
tion of what she "saw." Then she would open the envelope and 
compare the two drawings, and number both for identification.^/ 

This recording was, of course, an interruption of her passive 
state, and made the task difficult. In a few cases she repeated a 
number or forgot the number, and this leaves a chance for con- 
fusion. I have done my best to clear up all such uncertainties, but 
there is a margin of error of one or two per cent to be noted. This 
is too small to affect the results, but is mentioned in the interest of 

Since I found the sealing of envelopes tiresome, and Craig 
found the opening of them more so, we decided half way through 


the tests to abandon the sealing, and later we abandoned the 
envelopes altogether. We reasoned that acceptance of the evidence 
rests upon our good faith anyhow, and all that any sensible reader 
can ask is that Craig make sure of never letting a drawing get 
within her range of vision. She was doing this laborious work to 
get knowledge for herself, and she certainly made sure that she was 
not wasting her own time. 

At present the practice is this: I make her a set of six or eight 
drawings on little sheets of pad paper, and lay them face down 
on her table, with a clean sheet of paper over them. She lies down, 
and with her head lying back on the pillow and her eyes closed, 
she reaches for one of the drawings, and slides it over and onto 
her body, covered by her hand. It is always out of her range of 
vision, even if the drawing were turned toward her eyes, which 
it never is. 

For the comfort of the suspicious, let me add that the relaxing 
of the conditions caused no change in the averages. In the first four 
series, drawn by my secretary, and sealed by him in envelopes, 
there were only five complete failures in thirty-eight tests, which 
is thirteen per cent; whereas in the 252 drawings made by me there 
have been 65 outright failures, which is nearly twice as large a 
percentage. Series number six, which was carefully sealed up, 
produced four complete successes, five partial successes, and no 
failures; whereas series twenty-one, which was not put in envelopes 
at all, produced no complete successes, three partial successes, and 
six failures. Perhaps I should explain that by a "series" I mean 
simply a group of drawings which were done at one time. It is my 
custom to make from six to a dozen and when Craig has finished 
with them, they are put into an envelope and filed away. 

I will add that Craig again and again begged me to sit and 
watch her work, so that I might be able to add my testimony to 
hers; I did so, watching tests both with envelopes and without, 
and assure you she left no loophole for self-deception. There was 
plenty of light to see by, and some of the most startling successes 
were produced under my eyes. I will add that no one could take 
this matter with more seriousness than my wife. She is the most 
honorable person I know, and she has worked on these experiments 
with rigid conscientiousness. 


JL shall give a number of the successful drawings, and some 
of the partial successes, but none of the failures, for these obviously 
are merely waste. When I draw a cow, and my wife draws a star or 
a fish or a horseshoe, all you want is the word "Failure," and then 
you want to know the percentage of failures, so that you can figure 
the probabilities. Failures prove nothing that you do not already 
believe; if your ideas are to be changed, it Is successes that will 
change them. 

I begin with series three, because of the Interesting circum- 
stances under which it was made. Late In the afternoon I phoned 
my secretary to make a dozen drawings; and then, after dark, Craig 
and I decided to drive to Pasadena, and on the way I stopped at 
the office and got the twelve sealed envelopes which had been laid 
on my desk. I picked them up in a hurry and slipped them into a 
pocket, and a minute or two later I put them on the seat beside me 
in the car. 

After we had started, I said, "Why don't you try some of the 
drawings on the way?" We were passing through the Signal Hill 
oil-field, amid thunder of machinery and hiss of steam and flashing 
of headlights of cars and trucks. "It will be Interesting to see if 
I can concentrate in such circumstances," said Craig,and took one 
envelope and held it against her body in the darkness, while I went 
on with my job of driving. After a few minutes Craig said, "I see 
something long and oblong, like a stand." She got a pad and pencil 
from a pocket of the car, and switched on the ceiling light, and 
made a drawing, and then opened the envelope. Here are the pic- 
tures; I call it a partial success (Figs. 26, 26a): 

Fig. 26 Kg. 26a 




Here is the next pair, done on the same drive to Pasadena 

/faw<f np%4 


Then came a drawing of an automobile. Considering the 
attendant circumstances, it was surely not surprising that Craig 
should report it as "a big light in the end of a tube or horn/* 
There were many such lights in her eyes. 

Then a fourth envelope: she said, "I see a little animal or 
bug with legs, and the legs are sticking out in bug effect." When 
she looked into the envelope, she was so excited that she tried to 
get me to look at forty miles an hour on a highway at night! Here 
is the drawing, meant to be a skull and cross-bones, but so done that 
a "bug with legs" is really a fair description of it (Fig. 28): 

fig. 28 


After we arrived at our destination, my wife did some more 
of the drawings, and got partial successes. On this telephone the 
comment was: "Goblet with another one floating near or above it 
inverted" (Figs. 29, 29a): 

Fig. 29 Fig. 29a 

And then this arrow (Figs. 30, 30a): 

Fig. 30 Fig. 30a 

Concerning the above my wife wrote: "See something that 
suggests a garden tool a lawn rake, or spade." And for the next 
one (Fig. 31) she wrote: "A pully-bone" which is Mississippi 
"darky" talk for a wish-bone of a chicken. I don't know whether 
it means a bone that you pull, or whether it is Creole for "poulet." 
Here is what my secretary had drawn (Fig. 31): 

Fig. 31 

I had asked my secretary at the outset to make simple geo- 
metrical designs, letters and figures, thinking that these would be 
easier to recognize and reproduce. But they brought only partial 



successes; Craig would get elements of the drawing but would not 
know how to put them together. There were seven in the first 
series, and there is some element right in every one. An oblong 
was drawn exactly, and then two fragments of oblongs added to it. 
A capital M in script had the first stroke done exactly, with the 
curl. A capital E^in script was done with the curls left out. 

And the same with the second series. Here is a square but you 
see that the two halves of it are wandering about (Figs. 32, 32a): 

Fig. 32 

Fig. 32a 

And here is a letter Y, but by telepathy it has been turned from 
script into print (Figs. 33, 33a): 

Fig. 33 

Fig. 33a 

A quite different story began when my secretary allowed his 
imagination a little play. He knows that my wife lives in part on 
milk, and he knows that she is particular about the quality, because 
he has to handle the bills. So he has a little fun with her, and you 



see that immediately she gets, not the form, but the color and feeling 
of it (Figs. 34, 34a): 

Fig. 34 

Fig. 34a 

The comment reads: "Round white foamy stuff on top like 
soap suds or froth." As she drinks her milk sour and whipped, you 
see that its foaminess is a prominent feature. 

Then comes an oil derrick. We live in the midst of these 
unsightly objects, and are liable to be turned out of house and 
home by drilling nearby; moreover, I have written a book called 
"Oil!" and the exclamation mark at the end has been justified by 
the effect of it on our lives. My wife made a figure five with long 
lines going out, and wrote: "I don't know why the five should 
have such a thing as an appendage, but the appendage was most 
vivid, so there it is" (Figs. 35, 35a): 


Fig. 35 

Fig. 35a 

After she had opened the envelope and seen the original 
drawing, the problem became, not why a figure five should have 
an appendage, but why an oil derrick should have a figure five. 
Craig puzzled over this, and then lay down and told her subcon- 
scious mind to bring her the answer. What came was this: the 
German version of my book, called "Petroleum," has three oil 
derricks on the front, and a huge dollar sign on the back of the 


cover, and this was what Craig had really "seen/' She had looked 
at this book when it arrived, a year or more back, and it had been 
filed away in her memory. Of course, this may not be the correct 
explanation, but it is the one which her mind brought to her. 



iese drawing tests afford a basis for psycho-analysis, and 
it Is Interesting to note some of the facts thus brought up from the 
childhood of my wife. For example, fires I She was raised in the 
"black belt/* where there are nine Negroes to one white, and the 
former are still close to Africa. When Craig was a girl, a nurse In 
the family, having been discharged, set fire to the home while the 
adults were away, and the children asleep. Another servant, jealous 
of an unfaithful husband, put her two babies Into a barrel full of 
feathers and burned them alive. Other fires occurred; so now, In 
her home, Craig keeps an uneasy eye out for greasy rags, or over- 
heated stoves, or whatever else her fears suggest. When In these 
drawing tests there has been anything indicating fire or smoke, she 
has "got" it, with only one or two failures out of more than a dozen 
cases. Sometimes she "got" the fire or smoke without the object; 
sometimes she supplied fire or smoke to an object which might 
properly have It a pipe, for example. The results are so curious 
that I assemble them togethera series of fire-alarms, as it were. 

You recall the fact that in one of the early drawing tests 
those in which, instead of giving the drawings to my wife, I sat In 
my study and concentrated upon them I drew a lighted cigarette, 
and thought of the curls of smoke, Craig filled up her drawing 
with curves, and wrote: "I can't draw it, but curls of some sort." 
At this time the convention that "curls stood for smoke had not 
been established. But now, in the series drawn by my secretary, 
appeared a little house with smoking chimney, and you will see 
that my wife got the smoke better than the house (Figs. 36, 36a): 

D _ILf/ 

36 Fig. 36a 




This apparently established in her mind the association of 
curls with smoke. So when, in series six, I drew a pipe with smoke- 
curls, my wife first drew an ellipse, and then wrote: "Now it begins 
to spin, round and round, and is attached to a stick." She then 
drew (Figs. 37, 37a): 

Fig. 37 

Fig. 37a 

In series eight I drew a sky-rocket going up. My first impulse 
had been to draw a bursting rocket, with a shower of stars, but 
I realized that would be difficult, so I drew this instead (Fig. 38): 

Fig. 38 

My wife apparently took my first thought, rather than my 
drawing. Anyhow, she made half a dozen sketches of whirligigs 
and light (Figs. 38a, 38b, 38c): 




Kg. 38a Fig- 38b Rg - 38c 

And here in series twenty-two is a burning lamp (Figs. 39, 39a): 

Fig. 39 

Fig. 39a 

And in series thirty-four another, with comment: "flame and 
sparks" (Figs. 40, 40a): 


Fig. 40 

Fig. 40a 


I drew another pipe in series twenty-two, with the usual curls 
of smoke; and Craig wrote: "Smoke stack." I drew another in series 
thirty-three with the result that, five drawings in advance of the 
correct one, Craig drew a pipe with smoke. Of course, this may 
have been a co-incidence; but wait till you see how often such 
coincidences happen! (Figs. 41, 41a): 

Fig. 41 

Fig. 41a 

In series twenty-one I drew a chimney, and Craig drew a chim- 
ney, and added smoke. In thirty-four I drew an old-fashioned 
trench-mortar; and here again she supplied the smoke (Figs. 42, 

Fig. 42 

Fig. 42a 

Cannons are especially horrible things to her, as you may note 
again and again in her published war-sonnets: 
The sharpened steel whips round, the black guns blaze, 

Waste are the harvests, mute the songs of birds. 

So when, in series eleven, I drew the muzzle half of an old-style 
cannon, Craig's imagination got to work one drawing ahead of 
time. She wrote: "Fire and smoke smoke flame," and then drew 
as follows (Fig. 43a): 



Fig. 43a 

The next drawing was the cannon, and I give it, along with 
with the drawing Craig made to go with it. The comment she 
wrote was: "Half circledouble lines light inside light is fire 
busy whirling or flaming" (Figs. 44, 44a): 


Fig. 44 


So much for fires, and things associated with fire. Now con- 
sider another detail about life in the Yazoo delta, brought out in 
the course of our psychoanalysis. In the days of Craig's childhood, 
poisonous snakes were an ever-present menace, and fear of them 
had to be taught to children, and could hardly be taught too early. 
There is a family story of a little tot crawling under the house 
and coming back to report, "I see nuffin wiv a tail to itl" In the 
swamps back of Craig's summer home on the Mississippi Sound 
I have counted a dozen copperheads and moccasins in the course of 


a half hour's walk. Also, her father has some childhood complex 
burled in his mind, which causes him to have a spell of nausea at 
the sight of a snake. All this, of course, strongly affected the child's 
early days, and now it is in her mental depths. So when I drew a 
hissing snake, just see the uproar I caused! She made no drawing, 
but wrote a little essay. I give my drawing, and her essay following 
(Fig. 45): 

Fig. 4S 

"See something like kitten with tail and saucer of milk. Now 
it leaps into action and runs away to outdoors. Turns to fleeing 
animal outdoors. Great activity among outdoor creatures. Know 
it's some outdoor thing, not indoor object see trees, and a fright- 
ened bird on the wing (turned side wise). It's outdoor thing, but 
none of above seems to be it" 

In other words, little Mary Craig Kimbrough is back on the 
plantation, seeing terror among birds and poultry, and not knowing 
what causes it! Study the drawing, and you see that I got the action 
of the snake, but didn't get the coils very well, so they might be a 
"saucer of milk" and a sure-enough kitten's tail sticking out from 
it. Another childhood horror here! Craig was a fat little thing, 
and she slipped and plumped down on her favorite pet kitten, and 
exploded it. 


JLhe person whom we are subjecting to this process of psycho- 
analysis has a strong color sense, and wanted to be a painter. So we 
note that she "gets" colors and names them correctly. Here is my 
drawing of what I meant to be a bouquet of pink roses (Figs. 46, 

Fig. 46 

Fig. 46a 

Or take this case of a lobster. Craig's comment was: ''Gor- 
geous colors, red and greenish tinges." Apparently I had failed to 
decide whether I was drawing a live lobster or a boiled one! My 
wife wrote further: "Now it turns into a lizard, camelian, reds and 
greens." When she sees this about to be made public, she is embar- 
rassed by her bad spelling; but she says: "Please do not overlook 
the fact that a chameleon is a reptile and so is a lobster." I duti- 
fully quote her, even though her zoology is even worse than her 
spelling! (Figs. 47, 47a): 

Fig, 47 

Fig. 47a 




While we are on the "reptiles," I include this menacing crab, 
which may have got hold of little Mary Craig's toe on the beach of 
the Mississippi Sound (Fig. 48): 

Fig. 48 

For the crab, Craig made two drawings, on opposite sides of 
the paper (Figs. 48a, 48b): 

Kg. 48a Fig. 48b 

The comments on the above read; "Wings, or fingers wing 
effect, but no feathers, things like fingers instead of feathers. Then 
many little dots which all disappear, and leave two of them, O O, 
as eyes of something." And then, "Streamers flying from some- 

Another color instance: I drew the head of a horse, and Craig 
drew a lot of apparently promiscuous lines, and at various places 
wrote "yellow," "white," "blue," "(dark)," and then a general de- 
scription, "Oriental." Afterwards she said to me: "That looks like 
a complete failure; yet it was so vivid, I can't be mistaken. Where 
did you get that horse?" Said I: "I copied it from a Sunday sup- 
plement." We got the paper from the trash-basket, and the page 
opposite the horse contained what Craig described. We shall note 
several other cases of this sort of intrusion of things I did not draw, 
but which I had before me while drawing. 



Also anything with metal or shine seems to stand a good chance 
o being "got." For example, these nose-glasses (Figs. 49, 49a): 

Fig. 49 

Fig. 49a 

The comment reads: "Opalescent shine or gleam. Also pea- 

Or again, a belt-buckle; my wife writes the word "shines" 
(Figs. 50, 50a): 

Fig. 50 

Kg. SOa 

Or this very busy alarm clock she writes the same word 
"shines" (Figs. 51, 51a): 

Fig. 51 

Fig. Sla 

She has got at least part of a watch whenever one has been 
presented. You remember the one Bob drew (Fig. 17). There was 
another in series thirty-three; Craig made a crude drawing and 
added: "Shines, glass or metal" (Figs. 52, 52a): 



Fig. 52 

Fig. S2a 

Also, an the automobile ride to Pasadena, series three, there 
was a watch-face among the drawings, and Craig drew the angle of 
the hands, and added the words, "a complication of small configu- 
rations." Having arrived in Pasadena, she took the twelve drawings 
and tried them over again. This time, of course, she had a one in 
twelve chance of guessing the watch. She wrote: "A white trans- 
lucent glimmering, or shimmering which I knew was not light but 
rather glass. It was like heat waves radiating in little round pools 
from a center. . . . Then in the center I saw a vivid black mark. 
... So it was bound to be the watch, and it was." 

And here is a fountain. You see that it appears to be in a tub, 
and is so drawn by Craig. But you note that the "shine" has been 
got. "These shine!" (Figs. 53, 53a): 


Fig, 53 

Fig. 53a 

Another instance, even more vivid. I made a poor attempt to 
draw a bass tuba, as one sees them on the stage a lot of jazz musi- 



cians dressed up in white duck, and a row of big brass and nickel 
horns, polished to blind your eyes. See what Craig drew, and also 
what she wrote (Figs. 54, 54a) : 

Fig. 54 

The comments, continued on the other side of the sheet, are: 
"Dull gold ring shimmers and stands out with shadow behind it 
and in center of it. Gleams and moves. Metal. There is a glow of 
gold light, and the ring or circle is out in the air, suspended, and 
moves in blur of gold." 

You see, she gets the feeling, the emotional content. I draw a 
child's express-wagon, and she writes: "Children again playing but 
can't get exactly how they look. Just feel there are children." Or 
take this one, which she describes as "Egyptian." I don't know if 
my pillar is real Egyptian, but it seems so to me, and evidently to 
my wife, for you note all the artistry it inspired (Figs. 55, 55a): 

Fig. 55 

Fig. 55a 

Sometimes Craig will embody the feeling in some new form 
of her own invention; as for example, when I draw an old-fashioned 
cannon on wheels, and she writes: "Black Napoleon hat and red 
military coat." I draw a running foxwell drawn, because I copy 
it from a picture; she rises to the occasion with two crossed guns, 



and a hunting horn with a lot o musical notes coming out o it 

(Figs. 56, 56a): 


Fig. S6 

I draw an auto, and she replies with the hub and spokes of a 
wheel. Not satisfied with this, she sets it aside, and tries again a 
little later without looking at the original drawing and this time 
she produces a horn, with indication of a noise. I give both her 
drawings, which are on two sides of the same slip of paper (Figs. 
57a, 57b): 


Fig. S7a 

Fig. 57b 



extraordinary incident occurred In connection with the 
fourth series of drawings. While ray secretary, E. M. Hart, was 
making the drawings, there came into the office his brother-in-law, 
R. H. Craig, Jr., a teller of the Security First National Bank of Long 
Beach, a person entirely unknown to my wife. He heard what was 
going on, and said, "111 give her some that'll stump her." He took 
a pen and drew two pictures, which were duly wrapped in sheets of 
green paper and sealed in envelopes, and put with the rest of the 
series. I was not at the office, and nothing was said to me about 
Mr. Craig having taken part in the matter. 

My wife did this series under my eyes; and when she came to 
the first of Mr. Craig's two drawings, she wrote, "Some sort of grin- 
ning monster," and added an elaborate description. Then she 
opened the envelope, and found a roller skate with a foot and leg 
attached. This, naturally, was called a failure; but seven drawings 
later in the same series came Mr. Craig's other drawing, which was 
as follows (Fig. 58): 

Now read the amazing description which my wife had written, 
seven drawings back, when the first of Mr. Craig's drawings had 
come under her hand: 

"Some sort of grinning monstersee only the face and a vague 



idea of deformed neck and shoulders. It is a man, but it looks like 
a cat's face, cat eyes and whiskers. Don't know just how I know it 
is a man it is a deformity. Not a cat. See color of skin which is 
deep, flat pink, as of a colored picture. The face of the creature is 
broad and weird. The flesh of neck, or somewhere, gives effect of 
rolls or creases." 

I asked my secretary what this drawing was meant to be, and 
he said "a Happy Hooligan." My cultural backwardness is such 
that I wasn't sure just what a "Happy Hooligan" might be, but my 
secretary told me it is a comic supplement figure, and I then looked 
it up in the paper, and found that the face of the figure as printed 
is a very pale pink, and the little cap on top is a bright red. I called 
Mr. Craig on the phone and asked him this question: "If you were 
to think of a color in connection with a 'Happy Hooligan/ what 
color would it be?" He answered, "Red." 

Now I ask you, what chance do you think there is of a person's 
writing a description such as the above by guess work? To be sure, 
my wife had eight guesses; but do you think that eight million 
guesses would suffice? And if we call it telepathy, do we say that 
my wife's mind has the power to dip into the mind of a young man 
whom she has never seen, nor even heard of? Or shall we say that 
his mind affected his brother-in-law's, the brother-in-law's affected 
mine, and mine affected my wife's? Or, if we decide to call it clair- 
voyance, or psychometry, then are we going to say there is some 
kind of vibration or emanation from Mr. Craig's drawing, so pow- 
erful that when one of his drawings is handed to my wife, she gets 
what is in another drawing which has been done at the same time? 

Whatever may be the explanation, here is the fact: Again and 
again we find Craig getting, not the drawing she is holding under 
her hand, but the next one, which she has not yet touched. When 
she picks up the first drawing, she will say, or write: "There is a 
little man in this series"; or: "There is a snow scene with sled"; or: 
"An elephant, also a rooster." I am going to show you these par- 
ticular cases; but first a word as to how I have counted such "antici- 

Manifestly, if I grant the right to more than one guess, I am 
increasing the chances of guesswork, and correspondingly reducing 



the significance of the totals. What I have done is this: where such 
cases have occurred, I have called them total failures, except in a 
few cases, where the description was so detailed and exact as to be 
overwhelming as in the case of this "Happy Hooligan." Even so, 
I have not called it a complete success, only a partial success. In 
order to be classified as a complete success, my wife's drawing must 
have been made for the particular drawing of mine which she had 
in her hand at that time; and throughout this account, the reader 
is to understand that every drawing presented was made in connec- 
tion with the particular drawing printed alongside itexcept in 
cases where I expressly state otherwise. 

Now for a few of the "anticipations.'* In the course of series 
six, drawn by me on Feb. 8, 1929, drawing number two was a daisy, 
and Craig got the elements of it, as you see (Figs. 59, 59a): 


Fig. 59a 

Her mind then went ahead, and she wrote, "May be snow 
scene on hill and sled." The next drawing was an axe, which I give 
later (Fig. 145); she got the elements of this very well, and then 
added, on the back: "I get a feeling again of a snow scene to come 
in this seriesa sled in the snow." That was number three; and 
when number five came Craig made this annotation: "Opened it 
by mistake, without concentrating. It's my expected sled and snow 
scene." Here is the drawing (Fig. 60): 

Fig. 60 

Series number eight, on Feb. 10, brought even stranger results. 
This is the series in which the laced-up football was turned into a 


calf wearing a belly-band (Figs. 15, 15a). But even while I was 
engaged in making the drawings, sitting in my study apart, and 
with the door closed, Craig's busy magic, whatever it is, was bring- 
ing her messages. She called out; "I see a rooster!" I had actually 
drawn a rooster; but of course I made no reply to her words. She 
at once drew a rooster and several other things, and after I had 
brought my drawings into the room, but before she had started to 
work with them, she wrote as follows: 

"While Upton was making these drawings I sat before the fire 
thinking how to dry felt slippers which I had washed. I had my 
mind on them. Hung them on grating to see if they would hang 
there without burning. Suddenly saw rooster crowing. Then 
thought, 'Can U be drawing rooster?' Decided to make note of this. 
Did so. Then saw" and she draws a circle with eight radiating 
lines, like spokes of a wheel. 

In due course came drawing number eight, and before looking 
at It, Craig wrote: "Rooster." Then she added, "But no it looks 
like a picture of coffee-potsee spout and handle." This is hard 
on me as an artist, but I give the drawing and let you judge for 
yourself (Fig. 61): 

Fig. 61 

What about the circle and the radiating spokes? That was, 
apparently, a fore-glimpse of drawing number five. I give you that, 
together with what Craig drew for that particular test when it came. 
Her effort suggests the kind of humor with which the newspaper 
artists used to delight my childhood; a series of drawings in which 
one thing turns into some other and quite unexpected thing by 



gradual changes. You will see here how the hub of a wagon-wheel 
may turn into the muzzle of a deer! (Figs. 62, 62a): 

Fig: 62 

Fig. 62a 


'hat are the principles upon which I have classified the 
drawings, as between success, partial successes, and failures? I will 
use this series, number eight, to illustrate. There are eight draw- 
ings, and I have set them down as one success, six partial successes, 
one failure. The success is the rooster (Fig. 61), called "a rooster," 
even though it * looks like a coffee pot." The partial successes are, 
first, an electric light bulb, very crudely imitated as to shape in 
three drawings. Perhaps this was hardly good enough to be counted; 
it was a border-line case, and probably the poorest that I admitted 
to the classification of "partial successes" (Fig. 63a). 

Second, the ascending sky-rocket, already printed as fig. 38, 
giving rise to six different drawings of whirligigs and light. Third, 
the following drawing, for which Craig wrote: "See spider, or some 
sort of legged pest. If this is not a spider, there is a spider in the lot 
somewhere! This I know!" (Fig. 64): 



Fig. 64 

The fourth partial success was a drawn bow, with arrow fitted, 
ready to be launched. Craig wrote as follows: 'Ticked this up and 
saw inside as it dropped on floorso did not try it. Suddenly recall 
I have already 'seen' it earlier." Before starting the tests, along with 
her written mention of "a rooster," she had drawn a bow and crude 
arrow, and the resemblance is so exact that it seems to me entitled 
to be called a partial success (Figs. 65, 65a): 

Fig- 65 Fig. 65a 

Fifth, the wagon hub (Fig. 60), which became the deer's muzzle. 
And finally the laced-up football (Fig. 15) which became a belly- 
band on a calf (Fig. 15a). 

As for the failure in this series, it is a cake of soap, which was 
called "whirls/' There are a couple of other drawings in the series, 
marked: "Too tired to see it," and "Tired now and excited and 
keep seeing old things" meaning, of course, the preceding draw- 

I tried to avoid drawing the same object more than once, but 



now and then I slipped up. In series eleven I drew another rooster, 
and there followed, not one "anticipation," but several. Drawing 
number one was a tooth; Craig wrote: "First see rooster. Then 
elephant." Drawing number two was an elephant; and Craig wrote: 
"Elephant came again. I try to suppress it, and see lines, and a spike 
sticking some way into something." She drew it, and it seems clear 
that the "spike" is the elephant's tusk, and the head of the "spike" 
is the elephant's eye (Figs. 66, 66a): 

Fig. 66 

Fig. 66a 

Next, number three, was the rooster. But Craig had set 
"rooster" down in her mind as a blunder, so now she wrote: "I don't 
know what, see a bunch, or tuft clearly. Also a crooked arm on a 
body. But don't feel that I'm right." Here are the drawings, and 
you can see that she was somewhat right (Figs. 67, 67a): 

Fig. 67 

Fig. 67a 

This series eleven, containing fourteen drawings, is marked: 
"Did this lot rapidly, without holding (mind) blank. The chicken 


and elephant came at once, on a very earnest request to my mind to 
'come across. 1 " I have classified in this series two successes, five 
partial, and five failures: throwing out numbers twelve and four- 
teen, because Craig wrote: "Nothing except all the preceding ones 
come too many at once all past ones crowding in memory"; and 
again, "Nothing but everything in the preceding. Too many of 
them in my mind/' 

The anticipations run all through this series in a quite fasci- 
nating way. Thus, for number four Craig wrote: "Flower. This is 
a vivid one. Green spine leaves like century plant." She drew 
Figure 68a: 

Fig. 63a 

And then again, for drawing number seven, she did more 
flowers, with this comment: "This is a real flower, I've seen it 
before. It's vivid and returns. Century plant? Now it turns into 
candle stick. See a candle" (Fig. 69a). 

All this was wrong so far. Number four was a table, and 
number seven was the rear half of a cow. But now we come to 
number eleven, the plant known as a "cat-tail," which seems to 
resemble rather surprisingly the lower of the two drawings in Figure 
69a. My drawing is given as Figure 70, and the one Craig made for 
it is given as 70a. 



. 69a 

Fig. 70 

Fig, 70a 

Comment on the above read: "Very pointed. Am not able to 
see what. Dog's head?" 

Drawing five was a large fish-hook; and this inspired the 
experimenter to a discourse, as follows: "Dog wagging see tail in 
air busy wagging jolly doggie tail curled in air." And then: 
"Now I see a cow. I fear the elephant and chicken got me too sure 
of animals. But I see these." 

Now, a big fish-hook looks not unlike a "tail curled in air." 
But when we come to number seven, we discover what Craig was 
apparently anticipating. It is the drawing of what I have referred to 
as "the rear half of a cow." It is badly done, with a cow's hoof, but I 
forgot what a cow's tail is like, and this tail that I drew would fit 
much better on a "jolly doggy," you must admit (Fig. 71): 



Kg. 71 

Drawing number six was a sun, as children draw it, a circle 
with rays going out all round. Craig wrote: "Setting sun and bird 
in sky. Big bird on wing seagull or wild goose/' This I called a 
partial success. Number nine was the muzzle end of an old-style 
cannon, already reported in Figures 46, 46a. 

I conclude the study of this particular series with drawing 
thirteen, to which was added the comment: "Think of a saucer, 
then of a cup. It's something in the kitchen. Too tired to see" 
(Figs. 72, 72a): 

Fig. 72 Fig. 72a 

In series fourteen, drawing three, Craig wrote: "Man running, 
can't draw it." She drew as follows (Fig. 73a): 

Ptg. 73a 


Next came my drawing four, as follows (Fig, 73): 


Fig. 73 

In series thirty-five I first drew a fire hydrant, and Craig wrote, 
"Peafowl," and added the following drawing, which certainly con- 
stitutes a partial success (Figs. 74, 74a): 

Fig. U 

Fig. 74a 

My next drawing was the peafowl, as you see. For this Craig 
wrote: Teafowl again/' and apparently tried to draw the peafowl's 
neck, and a lot of those spots which I had forgotten are an appurten- 
ance of peafowls (Figs. 75, 75a): 

Fig. 7$a 



In series twenty-nine I drew an elevated railway. If you turn it 
upside down, as I have done here, it looks like water and smoke- 
stacks. Anyhow, Craig drew a steamboat (Figs. 76, 76a): 

Fig. 76 

Fig. 76a 

And then came my next drawing a steamboat! Craig wrote: 
"Smoke again/* and drew the smoke and the stack (Figs. 77, 77a): 

Fig. 77 

Fig. 77a 

She added two more drawings, which appear to be the wheel 
of the boat in the water, and the smoke (Figs. 77b, 77c): 

Fig. 77b 

Fig. 77c 



In series thirty I drew a fish-hook with line, and you see It 
turned into a flower (Figs. 78, 78a): 


Fig. 78a 

Then came an obelisk, and Craig got it, but with novel effects, 
thus (Figs. 79, 79a): 

Fig. 79 


Now why should an obelisk go on a jag, and have little circles 
at its base? The answer appears to be: it inherited the curves from 
the previous fish-hook, and the little circles from the next drawing. 
You will see that, having used up her supply of little circles, Craig 
did not get the next drawing so well (Figs. 80, 80a): 

Kg. 80 

Fig. 80a 


In series twenty-two I first drew a bed, and Craig made two 
attempts to draw a potted plant. My second drawing was a maltese 
cross, and Craig turned it into a basket (Figs. 81, 8 la): 

Fig. Si Fig. 81a 

But she could not give up her plant. She added: "There is a 
flower basket in this lot, or potted plant." The next drawing was 
a fleur-de-lis, which looks not unlike a potted plant or hanging 
basket (Fig. 82): 

Fig. 82 

In drawing four she got the elements of a door-knob pretty 
well, and added: "See head of bird, too eagle beak." Drawing 
seven was a crane, with beak open. 


JL could go through all thirty-five of the series, listing such 
"anticipations" as this: but I have given enough to show how the 
thing goes. Such occurrences make it hard for Craig because, when 
she has once drawn a certain object, she naturally resists the impulse 
to draw it again, thinking it is nothing but a memory. Thus, in 
series thirteen, my first drawing was a savage woman carrying a 
bundle on her head, and Craig drew the profile of a head with a long 
nose. My next drawing was the profile of a head, with a very con- 
spicuous nose, and Craig wrote: "Face again, but [I] inhibit this. 
Then come two hands, and below" and she draws what might be 
a cross section of a skull, side view. 

Yet sometimes she overcomes this handicap triumphantly.. 
Series twelve is marked: "Hastily done," and she adds the general 
comment: "Several times saw bristles on things of different shapes, 
some flowers, some bristled brushes. Saw flower, also more than 
once" and then she appends a drawing of a four-leaf clover. As it 
happened, this series contained a three-leaf clover, and it contained 
another flower, and also a cactus-plantmore of one kind of thing 
than it was fair to put into one set of drawings. Nevertheless, Craig 
scored one of her successes with the cactus, setting it down as "fuzzy 
flower" (Figs. 83, 83a): 

Fig. S3 

Fig, 83s 

Nor was she afraid to repeat herself when she came to another 
"fuzzy flower" in this series (Figs. 84, 84a): 




Fig. 84 Fig. Ma 

Frequently she will make a good drawing of an object, but 
name it badly. In that same series twelve I drew a hoe, and she got 
the shape of it, but wrote: "May be scissors, may be spectacles with 
long stem ears" (Figs. 85, 85a): 

fc> m^sJ^A^ 
Fig. 8$ Fig. 85a 

Also in the same series these reindeer horns, which she calls 
"holly leaves." It is psychologically interesting to note that rein- 
deer and holly trees were both associated with Christmas in Craig's 
childhood (Figs. 86, 86a): 

Fig. 86 Fig. 86a 

And in series eighteen, this fat baby bird of mine is hardly 
recognizable when called "flounder" (Figs. 87, 87a): 

Fig. 87 

Fig. 87a 



This very dim stalk of celery, drawn by me, I must admit looks 
more like a fish-fork (Figs. 88, 88a): 

Fig, 88 

Fig. 88a 

Craig's verbal description of the above reads: "Stone set in 
platinum; may be diamond, as points seem to be white light at 
least it shines, not red shine of fire but white shine." How does 
a stalk of celery, which looks like a fish-fork, come to have a dia- 
mond set in it? You may understand the reason when you hear 
that three drawings later in the same series is a diamond set in a 
stick. Just why it occurred to me to set a diamond thus I cannot 
now recall, but the drawing is plain, and it led to a bit of fun. I 
had been to lunch with Charlie Chaplin that day, and had come 
home and told my wife about it; so here my sparkling diamond 
undergoes a transfiguration! "Chaplin," writes my wife, and adds: 
"I don't see why he has on a halo" (Figs. 89, 89a): 

Fig. 89 

Fig. 89a 

From the point of view of bad guessing, the most conspicuous 
series is number twenty. In this I have recorded four successes, 
seven partial, and one failure; yet there is hardly an object that 
is correctly named. Here are the three which I call successes; there 
may be dispute about any one of them, but it seems to me the 
essential elements have been got. You may be surprised at a neck- 



tie which ''"began to smoke** but not when you see that the next 
drawing is a burning match! (Figs. 90, 90a; 91, 91a; 92, 92a): 

Fig. 90 

Fig. 90a 

Fig. 91 

Fig. 9!a 

Fig. 92 

Kg. 92a 

As for the partial sucesses, I give six of them by way of samples. 
For the first, Craig's comment was: "The body is vague, but see 
there is a body/' You will agree that my mountain landscape looks 
oddly like a body (Figs. 93 93a): 


fig. 93 

Fig. 93a 

And the pedals of this harp make a charming pair of lady's 
feet (Figs. 94, 94a): 

Fig, 94 

Fig. 94a 

This balloon is described in my wife's comment as: "Shines in 
sunlight, must be metal, a scythe hanging among vines or strings." 

Fig. 95 



This, which is called "front foot and leg of dog, though I 
don't see the dog," is really drawn more like the spigot of my 
drawing (Figs. 96, 96a): 

Fig. 96 Fig. 96a 

A butterfly's wings are "got" remarkably well (Figs. 97, 97a). 
And the trade-marks on my little box are called "tiny stars, or 
sparks" (Figs. 98, 98a): 

Fig. 91 

Fig. 97a 

Fig. 98 

Fig. 98a 


JL have referred to the fact that my wife's drawings sometimes 
contain things which are not in mine, but which were in my mind 
while I was making them, or while she was "concentrating/ 1 One 
of the most curious of such cases came in series twenty-eight, which 
was after we had given up, as too great a nuisance, all precautions 
in the way of sealing the drawings in envelopes. I made eight 
drawings, and laid them face down on my wife's table, and then 
went out and took a walk while she did them. So, of course, it 
was easy for her to do what she pleased and maybe she "peeked," 
the skeptic will say. But as it happens, she didn't get a single one 
right! Instead of reproducing my drawings, what she did was to 
reproduce my thoughts while I was walking up and down on the 
ocean front. It seems to me that in so doing, she provided a per- 
fect answer to those who may attribute these results to any form 
of deception, whether conscious or unconscious. 

There was a moon behind a bank of dark clouds, and it pro- 
duced an unusual effect a well-defined white cross in the sky. I 
watched it for nearly half an hour, and my continued thought was: 
"If this were an age of superstition, that would be a portent, and 
we should hear about it in history/' It was so strange that I finally 
went home and called my wife out onto the street. I did not tell 
her why. I wanted to see her surprise, so I purposely gave no hint. 
I said: "Come out! Please come!*' Finally she came, and her com- 
ment was: "I just drew that!" We went back into the house, and 
she handed me a drawing. I give it alongside my drawing of an 
Indian club, which Craig had held while doing hers. You may see 
exactly how much of her impulse came from that source (Figs. 99, 

Fig. 99 Fig. 99a 



The "comment" reads: "Light 'fingers' moonlight/' Also: 
"black shadow/ 1 

Let me add also that in the eight drawings I handed to Craig 
there was neither moon, cloud, cross, nor light. Two of these eight 
my wife failed to mark, and so I cannot identify them as belonging 
to this series; but we examined all eight at the time, and made 
sure of this point. Those which I now have are a flag, a bearded 
man, a chiffonier, a cannon, a dirt-scraper, and the Indian club, 
given above. 

You will ask, perhaps, did Craig look out of the window. As 
it happened, this sky effect was invisible from any window, and I 
have her word that she had not moved from her couch. I should 
add that she is nervous, and keeps the curtains tightly drawn at 
night, and never goes out at night unless it is to be driven some- 
where. It was early in March, with a cold wind off the sea, and I 
had to labor to persuade her to put a wrap over her dressing gown 
and step out into the middle of the street to look up at the sky. 



ie casual reader may be bored by too many of these draw- 
Ings, but they are easy to skip, or to take in at a glance, and there 
may be students who will want to examine them carefully. So I 
will add a selection of the significant drawings, with only brief 
remarks. I begin with what I have called partial successes, and 
then add a few more of those I have called "complete/* 

Let us return to the early drawings, made by my secretary. On 
the automobile ride to Pasadena, there was an ash-can (Fig. 100): 

Fig. 100 

For the above my wife wrote: "I see a chain dangling from 
something resembling little chimney pot on top of house." 

And here is design for which the comment was: "These some- 
how belong together but won't get together" (Figs. 101, lOla): 


/ A 
> A/ 


Fig. 101 

Fig. lOla 

Here is a fan, with comment: 'Inside seems irregular, as if 
cloth draped or crumpled" (Figs. 102, 102a): 




Fig. 102 Fig. 102a 

Here is a one-half success (Figs. 103, lOSa): 

Fig. 103 

Fig. 103a 

Here is a broom, drawn by my secretary (Fig. 104), and several 
efforts to reproduce it (Figs. 104a, 104b): 

Fig. 104 

Fig. 104a 

Fig. 104b 

The comments accompanying these drawings read: "All I'm 
sure of is a straight line with something curved at end of it; once 
it came 1 ' (here is drawing of the flower). "Then it doubled, or re- 
appeared, I don't know which. (Am not sure of curly edges.) Then 
it was upside down." 

The next drawing was a heart, and my wife got the upper half 
with what are apparently blood-drops added (Figs. 105, 105a): 



Kg. 10$ 


The above Is interesting, as suggesting that whatever agency 
furnished the information knew more than it was telling. For if 
Craig's drawing, a pair of curves, constituted a crude letter N, or 
had no significance, why add the blood-drops, which were not in 
the original? On the other hand, if her subconscious mind knew it 
was a heart, why not give her the whole heart, and let her draw it? 

So much for the drawings of my secretary; and now for my own 
early drawings. When I was a school boy, we used to represent 
human figures in this way; and, as you see, Craig got the essentials 
(Figs. 106, 106a): 

Fig. 106 

Fig. 106a 

Several weeks later, I drew a pair of such figures in action and 
the comment was: 'It's a whirligig of some sort" (Figs. 107, 107a). 

Fig. 107 


Kg. 107a 



After the following drawing, Craig asked me not to do any 
more hands, for the reason that she "got" this, but thought it was 
my own hand doing the drawing. She guessed something else, and 
wrote: "Turned into pig's head, then rabbit's" (Figs. 108, 108a): 


Fig. 108 

Fig.- 108a 

Next, this bat, with very striking comment. 
"Looks like ear-shaped something/* and again: 
"Looks like calla lily" (Figs. 109, 109a): 




Fig. 109 Fig. 109a 

A butterfly net (Figs. 110, HOa). 

Fig. 110 

A key (Figs. Ill, Ilia): 


Kg, in 

Kg. Ilia 


This highly humorous sunrise (Figs. 112, 112a): 


Fig. 112 

Fig. I12a 

A carnation which came after the preceding drawing, and ap- 
parently had been anticipated in the "sunrise" (Figs. 113, 113a). 

Fig. 113 

Fig. 113a 

Note that this camp-stool, as I drew it, really does appear to 
be standing on water (Figs. 114, 114a): 

Fig. 114 

Fig, 114a 

For this little waiter, who follows, no drawing was made by 
my wife. Her written comment was: "I see at once the profile of 
human face. Am interrupted by radio tune. Something makes me 
think of a cow. Now see two things sticking out like horns" (Fig. 



Fig. 115 
The following had no comment (Figs. 116, 1 16a): 

Fig. 116 Fig. 116a 

Nor the next ones (Figs. 1 17, 1 17a): 

Fig. 117 

Fig. H7a 

The comment on this caterpillar was: "Fork then garden 
tool lawn rake. Leaf/' I might add that we have a lawn-rake made 
of bristly bamboo, which looks very much like my drawing (Figs. 
118, 118a): 

Fig. 118 

Fig. 118a 



In the following case I drew sixteen stars, and you may count 
and see that Craig got twelve of them, and made up the difference 
with a moon! (Figs. 119, 119a): 




Fig, 119a 

Comment on the following: "Looks like a monkey wrench, 
but it may be a yardstick" (Figs. 120, 120a): 

/ ] 

- r i 

r/ j 


1 % 


* 1 



Fig. 120 

Fig. 120a 

In the next one, the curve of the worm is amusingly reproduced 
by the bird's neck. The comment added: "But it may be a snake." 
Craig says this is an example of how one part of the drawing comes 
to her, and then, in haste, her memory-trains and associations sup- 
ply what they think should be the rest (Figs. 121, 12 la). 

Fig. 121 

Fig. 121a 

The umbrella brings up Craig's reptile "complex" again. I 
assure you that in her garden, she turns sticks into snakes when they 
are far less snake-like than my drawing. Her comment was: "I 
feel that it is a snake crawling out of something vivid feeling of 
snake, but it looks like a cat's tail" (Figs. 122, 122a): 



Fig. 122 Fig. 122a 

I drew a wall-hook to hang your coat on (Figs. 123, 123a): 

Fig. 123 

Fig. 123a 

A design, evidently felt as a design, though not well got (Figs. 
124, 124a): 

Fig. 124 

Fig. 124a 

A screw, with comment: "light-house or tower. Too fat at 
base." If Craig's drawing were made narrower at base, it would 
reproduce the screw very well. Note that in the right-hand "tower" 
the screw-like effect of the "set backs" is kept (Figs. 125, 125a): 

Fig. 125 

Fig. 125a 



Here is a love story which seems to go wrong, the hearts being 
turned to opposition (Figs. 126, 126a): 

Fig. I26a 

Fig. 126 

Here is the flag, made simpler "e pluribus unum!" (Figs. 
127, 127a): 

Fig. 127 

Fig. 127a 

Here is a cow, as seen by the cubists. Comment: "Something 
sending out long lines from it" (Figs. 128, 128a): 

Fig. 128 

Fig. 128a 

Telegraph wires, apparently seen as waves in the ether (Figs. 
129, 129a): 

Fig. 129 

Kg. 129a 



Comment on the following: "Horns. Can't see what they are 
attached to" (Figs. 130, ISOa): 

Fig. 130 

Pig. 130a 

And here is a parrot turned into a leaf, with comment. "See 
veins and stem with sharp vivid bend in it'* which seems to indi- 
cate a sense of the parrot's beak (Figs. 131, 13 la): 

Fig. 131 

Fig. 131a 



ic border-line between successes and failures is not easy 
to determine. Bear in mind that we are not conducting a drawing 
class, nor making tests of my wife's eyesight: we are trying to ascer- 
tain whether there does pass from my mind to hers, or from my 
drawing to her mind, a recognizable impulse of some sort. So, if 
she gets the essential feature of the drawing, we are entitled to 
call it evidence of telepathy. I think the fan with "crumpled cloth" 
(Fig. 102), and the umbrella handle that may be a "snake crawling 
out of something," but that "looks like a cat's tail" (Fig. 122), and 
the screw that was called a "tower" (Fig. 126) all these are really 
successes. I will append a number of examples, about which there 
seems to me no room for dispute, and which I have called successes. 
The first is a sample of architecture (Figs. 132, 132a): 

Fig. 132 Fig. 132a 

And here is an hour-glass, with sand running through it. Not 
merely did Craig write "white sand," but she made the tree the 
same shape as the glass. I have turned the hour-glass upside down 
so that you can get the effect better. It should be obvious that 
"upside-downness" has nothing to do with these tests, as Craig is 
as apt to be holding a drawing one way as another (Figs. 133, 133a): 

Fig. 133 


Fig. 133a 



And these three circles, with comment: "Feel sure It Is/' 
written above the drawing (Figs. 134, 134a): 

Fig. 134 

Fig. 134a 

As to the next comment, "Trumpet flower/' let me explain 
that we have them In our garden, whereas we do not have any 
musical trumpets or horns (Figs. 135, 135a): 

Fig. 135 

Fig. 135a 

This strange object from my pencil tried to be a conch-shell, 
but got a bad start, and was left unclassified. Craig made It "life 
buoy in water," which is good, except for the spelling. She insists 
upon my pointing out that shells also belong in water (Figs. 136, 

FSg. 136 

Fig. 136a 



This one, described in good country fashion, "Muley cow with 
tongue hanging out'* (Fig. 137): 

Fig, 13? 

This next one was described by the written word: "Goat" 
(Fig. 138): 

Fig. 13S 

And this one is so striking that I give the words in facsimile 
(Figs. 139, 189a): 

Fig. 139 

Fig. 139a 

For the following, my wife described a wrong thing, and then 
added: "Now a sudden new thing, cone-shaped or goblet-like. This 
feels like if 9 (Figs. 140, 140a): 



Fig. 140 

Fig. 140a 

This was correctly named: "2 legs of something running" 
(Figs. 141, 141a): 

Fig. 141 

Fig. 141a 

This Alpine hat with feather seems to me no less a success 
because it is called "Chafing dish 9 ' (Figs. 142, 142a): 

Fig. 142 

Fig. 142a 

Nor this wind-mill because the sails are left off (Figs. 143, 

Fig. 143 

Fig. 143a 



These concentric circles are called "Horn (very curled), or 
shell" (Figs. 144, 144a): 

. 144 

Fig. 144a 

And here is a curious one, which came early in the tests. I 
call attention to the comment about the handle, which ran off the 
sheet of paper without any ending, just as she says. "Letter A with 
something long above it. Key or a sword, there seems to be no 
end to the handle. Think it's a key" (Figs. 145, 145a): 

Fig. 145 

$J%A* l\ 

Fig. 14Sa 



And finally, this still more astonishing one, to serve as a climax. 
Let me explain that I am not so good an artist as this; I copied my 
drawing from some magazine (Figs, 146, 146a): 

Fig, 146a 

You note that my wife "got/* not merely the whole top of the 
drawing, but some impression of the arms, which are crossed in 
a peculiar way. I ask her about this case the drawing having been 
made less than a month ago and I find that she remembers it well. 
She saw what she thought was a turban wound about the head, and 
got the impression of color. She wrote the words "not hair" to 
make this clear. The rest of the comment written at the time was: 
"See back of head, ear, and swirling scarf tied around head/' 


JL have now given nearly all the 65 drawings which I call "suc- 
cesses/' and about half the 155 which I call "partial successes." 
This, I think, is enough for any purpose. No one can seriously 
claim that such a set of coincidences could happen by chance, and 
so it becomes necessary to investigate other possible explanations. 

First, a hoax. As covering that point, I prepared a set of affi- 
davits as to the good faith of myself, my wife, her sister, and her 
sister's husband. These affidavits were all duly signed and wit- 
nessed; but friends, reading the manuscript, think they use up 
space to no purpose, and that the reader will ask no more than the 
statement that this book is a serious one, and that the manuscript 
was carefully read by all four of the persons mentioned above, and 
approved by them as representing the exact truth. 

That a group of persons should enter into a conspiracy to 
perpetrate a hoax is conceivable. Whether or not it is conceivable 
of the group here quoted is something of which the reader is the 
judge. But this much is clear: any reader who, having read the 
above, still suspects us, will not be convinced by further protesta- 

How about the possibility of fraud by one person? No one 
who knows Mary Craig Sinclair would suspect her; but you who 
do not know her have, naturally, the right to consider such an 
hypothesis. Can she be one of those women who enjoy being 
talked about? The broaching of this idea causes her to take the 
pencil away from her husband, and you now hear her own authentic 
voice, as follows: 

"I happen to be a daughter of that once very living thing, 'the 
Old South/ and there are certain ideals which are in my blood. 
The avoidance of publicity is one of them. But even if I had ever 
had a desire for publicity, it would have been killed by my actual 
experiences as the wife of a social crusader. My home is besieged 
by an endless train of persons of every description, who travel over 



the place, knocking on doors and windows, and insisting upon hav- 
ing a hearing for their various programs for changing the nature 
of the universe. I have been driven to putting up barriers and 
fences around my garden, and threatening to flee to the Himalayas, 
and become a Yogic mistress, or whatever a Yogic 'master' of my 
sex is called. 

"Jack London tried to solve this problem by putting a sign 
on the front door which read, 'Go to the back door/ and on the 
back door one which read, 'Go to the front door/ But when I tried 
this, one seeker of inspiration took his seat halfway between the 
two doors, and declared that he would remain there the rest of 
his life, or until his wishes were acceded to. Another hid himself 
in the swimming-pool, and rose up from its depths to confront me 
in the dusk, when, as it happened, I was alone on the place, and 
went out into the garden for a breath of air. A third announced 
that he had a million dollars to present to my husband in person, 
and would not be persuaded to depart until my brother invited 
him to go downtown to supper, and so got him into a car. Having 
faithfully fed the hungry millionaire, my brother drove him to the 
police-station, where, after a serious talking-to by the chief, he 
consented to carry his million dollars away. A fourth introduced 
himself by mail as having just been released from the psychopathic 
ward in Los Angeles, and intending to call upon us, for reasons not 
stated. A fifth announced himself by telephone, as intending to 
come at once and shoot my husband on sight. Yet another, seven 
feet tall and broad in proportion, announced that he had a revela- 
tion direct from God, and had come to have the manuscript revised. 
When politely asked as to its nature, he rose up, towering over my 
none too husky spouse and declaring that no human eye had ever 
beheld it, and no human eye would ever be permitted to behold it. 
Such experiences, as a continuing part of a woman's life, do not 
lead her to seek publicity; they tend rather to develop a persecution 

"Speaking seriously, I consider that I have every evidence of 
the effect of people's thoughts on each other. And my distrust of 
human nature, in its present stage of evolution, is so great, that 
the idea of having many persons concentrate their attention on 
me is an idea from which I shrink. I agree with Richet that the 


fact of telepathy Is one of the most terrifying in existence; and 
nothing but a deep love of truth has induced me to let this very 
personal story be told in print/' 

Next, what about the possibility of unconscious fraud? This 
also is a question to be frankly met. All students of psychology 
know that the subconscious mind has dubious morals. One has only 
to watch his own dreams to discover this. A person in a trance is 
similar to one talking or walking in sleep, or a drunken man, or 
one under the influence of a drug. But in this case it must be 
noted that my wife has never been in a trance. In these mind- 
reading tests, no matter how intense the "concentration," there 
is always a part of her mind which knows what she is doing. If 
you speak to her, she is immediately "all there." When she has her 
mental pictures, she sits up and makes her drawing, and compares 
it with mine, and this is a completely conscious act. 

Moreover, I point out that a great deal of the most impressive 
evidence does not depend upon Craig alone. The five drawings 
with her brother-in-law, Figures 1, 16, 17, 18, 19, constitute by 
themselves evidence of telepathy sufficient to convince any mind 
which is open to conviction. While it would have been possible 
for Craig and Bob to hoax Dollie and me, it could certainly not 
have been done without Bob's connivance. If you suggest that my 
wife and my brother-in-law may have been fooling me, 1 reply that 
there is a still greater mass of evidence which could not have been 
a hoax without my connivance. When I go into my study alone 
a little sun-parlor at the front of a beach-house, with nothing but a 
couch, a chair and a tableI certainly know that I am alone; and 
when I make a drawing and hold it before my eyes for five or ten 
minutes, I certainly know whether any other person is seeing it. 
This covers the drawings presented as Figures 2, 20, and 21, with 
four others told about in the same series. It seems to me these 
seven cases by themselves are evidence of telepathy sufficient to 
convince any open mind. 

Furthermore, there are the several score drawings which I 
made in my study and sealed up in envelopes, taking them to my 
wife and watching her lay them one by one upon her body and 
write down more or less accurately what was in them, I certainly 
know whether I was alone when I made the drawings, and whether 


I made the contents of the envelopes invisible, and whether my 
wife had any opportunity to open the envelopes before she made 
her drawings. Of course, I understand the familiar conjuring trick 
whereby you open one envelope, and hide it in your palm, and 
pretend to be describing the next one while really describing the 
one you have seen. But I would stake my life upon the certainty 
that my wife knows no sleight-of-hand, and anyhow, I made certain 
that she did not open the first one; I sat and watched her, and after 
each test she handed me the envelopes and drawings, one by one 
the envelopes having previously been numbered by me. She would 
turn out the reading-light which was immediately over her head, 
but there was plenty of light from other parts of the room, enough 
so that I could look at drawings as they were shown to me. Often 
these tests were done in the daytime, and then all we did was to 
pull down the window-shades back of the couch. 

It should be obvious that I stand to lose much more than I 
stand to gain by publishing a book of this sort. Many have urged 
me not to take the risk. It is the part of prudence not to believe 
too many new and strange ideas. Some of my Socialist and material- 
ist friends are going to say without troubling to read what I have 
written: "Sinclair has gone in for occultism; he is turning into a 
mystic in his old age." It is true that I am fifty-one, but I think my 
mind is not entirely gone; and if what I publish here is mysticism, 
then I do not know how there can be such a thing as science about 
the human mind. 

We have made repeated tests to see what happens; we have 
written down our observations as we go along; we have presented 
the evidence carefully and conscientiously, without theories; and 
what any scientist can do, or ask to have done, more than this, I 
cannot imagine. Those who throw out these results will not be 
scientists, but merely another set of dogmatists of whom new crops 
are continually springing up, wearing new disguises and new labels. 
The plain truth is that in science, as in politics and religion, it is 
a lot easier to believe what you have been taught, than to set out 
for yourself and ascertain what happens. 

Of course the thing would be more convincing if it were done 
in the presence of strangers. That brings up a question which is 
bound to be asked, so I will save time by answering it here. The 


first essential to success in these tests is a state of mind; and at 
present my wife is a sensitive woman, at the stage of life described 
as "glandular imbalance/' She has never tried these experiments 
in the presence of a stranger, and has no idea whether she could get 
the necessary concentration. She learned from her experiments 
with her sick brother-in-law that the agent can send you pain and 
fear, as well as chairs and table-forks, and she would certainly not 
enter lightly into a condition of rapport with those whom she did 
not know and trust. 

She insists that the way for you to be really certain is to follow 
her example. If you sat and watched her do it, you might go away 
with doubts, as she did after her experiments with Jan. But when 
you have done it yourself, then you know. One reason the thing 
has not been proven to the public is that people depend on profes- 
sional mediums, many of whom are deliberate and conscious cheats. 
Others are vain and temperamental, difficult to manage; and re- 
search is hindered by their instability. That is why Craig set to 
work and learned to do it, and she believes that others can do the 
same, if they have the desire and the patience. 


JLhe next thing Is to carry out our promise and tell you the 
technique. My wife has, among her notes, a mass of writing on this 
subject in the form of instructions to Bob, and others who were 
interested. I tried to condense it, but found I could not satisfy her, 
and in the end I realized that her point of view is correct. No one 
objects to repetition of phrases in a legal document, where the one 
essential is precision; and the same thing applies to descriptions of 
these complicated mental processes. This was the most difficult 
writing task she ever undertook, and the reason lies in its newness, 
and the complexity of the mind Itself. 

If you want to learn the art of conscious mind-reading, this will 
tell you how; and if you don't want to leam it, you can easily skip 
this section of the book. Here is Craig's statement: 

^"The first thing you have to do Is to learn the trick of undi- 
vided attention, or concentration. By these terms I mean some- 
thing quite different from what is ordinarily meant. One 'concen- 
trates' on writing a chapter in a book, or on solving a problem in 
mathematics; but this is a complicated process of dividing one's 
attention, giving it to one detail after another, judging, balancing, 
making decisions. The kind of concentration I mean is putting the 
attention on one object, or one uncomplicated thought, such as joy, 
or peace, and holding it there steadily. It isn't thinking; it is inhib- 
iting thought, except for one thought, or one object in thought. 

"You have to inhibit the impulse to think things about the 
object, to examine it, or appraise it, or to allow memory-trains to 
attach themselves to it. The average person has never heard of such 
a form of concentration, and so has to learn how to do it. Simulta- 
neously, he must learn to relax, for strangely enough, a part of con- 
centration is complete relaxation^ 

"There seems to be a contradiction here, in the idea of simul- 
taneous concentration and relaxation. I do not know whether this 
is due to a contradiction in the nature of the mind itself, or to our 



misunderstanding of its nature. Perhaps we each have several 
mental entities, or minds, and one of these can sleep (be blankly 
unconscious), while another supervises the situation, maintaining 
the first one's state of unconsciousness for a desired period, and 
then presenting to it some thought or picture agreed on in advance, 
thus restoring it to consciousness. 

"Anyway, it is possible to be unconscious and conscious at the 
same time! Almost everyone has had the experience of knowing, 
while asleep, that he is having a bad dream and must awaken him- 
self from it. Certainly some conscious entity is watching the dream, 
and knowing it is a dream; and yet the sleeper is 'unconscious/ Or 
perhaps there is no such thing as complete relaxation until death. 

"All I can say is this: when I practice this art which I have 
learned, with my mind concentrated on one simple thing, it is a 
relaxation as restful, as seemingly 'complete/ as when I am in that 
state called normal sleep. The attention is not allowed to be on the 
sensations of the body, or on anything but the one thing it is delib- 
erately 'concentrated* on. 

"Undivided concentration, then, means, for purposes of this 
experiment, a state of complete relaxation, under specified control. 
To concentrate in this undivided way you first give yourself a 'sug- 
gestion 1 to the effect that you will relax your mind and your body, 
making the body insensitive and the mind a blank, and yet reserv- 
ing the power to 'break* the concentration in a short time. By 
making the body insensitive I mean simply to relax completely 
your mental hold of, or awareness of, all bodily sensation. After 
giving yourself this suggestion a few times, you proceed to relax 
both body and mind. Relax all mental interest in everything in 
the environment; inhibit all thoughts which try to wander into 
consciousness from the subconsciousness, or from wherever else 
thoughts come. This is clearly a more thorough affair than 'just 

\ "Also, there is something else to it the power of supervising 
the condition. You succeed presently in establishing a blank state 
of consciousness, yet you have the power to become instantly con- 
scious, also; to realize when you are about to go into a state of sleep, 
in which you have not the power of instantly returning to con- 
sciousness. Also, you control, to a certain degree, what is to be 


presented to consciousness when you are ready to become conscious. 
For example, you want a message from the person who is sending 
you a message; you do not want a train of subconscious "day dreams/ 

"All this is work; and so far, it is a bore. But when you have 
learned to do it, it is an art worth knowing. You can use it, not only 
for such experiments as telepathy and clairvoyance, but for improv- 
ing your bodily health. To relax thoroughly several times each 
day while holding on to a suggestion previously 'planted' in the 
subconsciousness is more beneficial to health than any other one 
measure I know. 

"The way to relax is to 'let go/ 'Let go' of every tense muscle, 
every tense spot, in the body. Pain is tension. Pain can be inhibited 
by suggestion followed by complete relaxation. Drop your body, 
a dead-weight, from your conscious mind. Make your conscious 
mind a blank. It is the mind, conscious or subconscious, which 
holds the body tense. Give to the subconsciousness the suggestion 
of concentrating on one idea, and then completely relax conscious- 
ness. To make the conscious mind a blank it is necessary to let go' 
of the body; just as to let go* of the body requires letting go' of 
consciousness of the body. If, after you have practiced letting go* 
of the body, you find that your mind is not a blank, then you have 
not succeeded in getting your body rid of all tension. Work at it 
until you can let both mind and body relax completely. 

"It may help you to start as follows: Relax the. body as com- 
pletely as possible. Then visualize a rose, or a violetsome pleas- 
ant, familiar thing which does not arouse emotional memory-trains. 
Gaze steadily, peacefully, at the chosen object think only of it- 
try not to let any memories it may arouse enter your mind. Keep 
attention steady, just seeing the color, or the shape of the flower 
and nothing else. Do not think things about the flower. Just look 
at it. Select one thing about it to concentrate on, such as its shape, 
or its color, or the two combined in a visual image: 'pink and 

"If you find that you are made nervous by this effort, it is apt 
to be due to the fact that you are thinking things. Maybe the object 
you have chosen has some buried memories associated with it- 
something which arouses unconscious memories of past unhappy 
events. Roses may suggest a lost sweetheart, or a vanished garden 


where you once were happy and to which you long to return. If so, 
select some other flower to concentrate on. Flowers are usually the 
most restful, the things which are not so apt to be involved with 
distressing experiences. A bottle of ink might suggest the strain of 
mental work, a spoon might suggest medicine. So, find a peace- 
Inspiring object to look at. When you have found it, just look at It, 
with undivided attention. 

"If you succeed in doing this, you will find it hard not to 
drop asleep. But you must distinguish between this and the state 
you are to maintain. If you drop asleep, the sleep will be what Is 
called auto-hypnotic sleep, and after you have learned to Induce it, 
you will be able to concentrate on an idea, instead of the rose, and 
to carry this idea into the sleep with you as the idea to dominate 
the subconsciousness while you sleep. This idea, taken with you 
into sleep in this way, will often act in the subconsciousness with 
the same power as the idea suggested by a hypnotist. If you have 
ever seen hypnotism, you will know what this means. You can 
learn to carry an idea of the restoration of health into this auto- 
hypnotic sleep, to act powerfully during sleep. Of course this cura- 
tive effect Is not always achieved. Any idea introduced into the 
subconsciousness may meet a counter-suggestion which, if you are 
ill, already exists in the subconsciousness, and a conflict may ensue. 
Thus, time and perseverance may be necessary to success. 

"But this is another matter, and not the state for telepathy 
in which you must avoid dropping into a sleep. After you have 
practiced the exercise of concentrating on a flower and avoiding 
sleep you will be able to concentrate on holding the peculiar blank 
state of mind which must be achieved if you are to make successful 
experiments in telepathy. There may be strain to start with, but it 
is getting rid of strain, both physical and mental, which constitutes 
relaxation, or blankness, of the conscious mind. Practice will teach 
you what this state is, and after a while you can achieve It without 

/ "The next step: ask someone to draw a half-dozen simple 
designs for you on cards, or on slips of paper, and to fold them so 
that you cannot see the contents. They should be folded separately, 
so that you can handle one at a time. Place them on a table, or 
chair, beside your couch, or bed, in easy reach of your hand, so that 


you can pick them up, one at a time, while you are stretched out 
on the bed, or couch, beside them. It is best at first to experiment 
in the dark, or at least in a dimly lit room, as light stimulates the 
eyes and interferes with relaxation. If you experiment at night, 
have a table lamp within easy reach, so that you can turn the light 
off and on for each experiment without too much exertion, as you 
must keep your body and mind as passive as possible for these 
experiments. If you have no reading light near, use a candle. You 
must have also a writing pad and pencil beside you. 

"After you have placed the drawings on the table, turn off the 
light and stretch your body full length on the couch. Close your 
eyes and relax your body. Relax completely. Make the mind a 
complete blank and hold it blank. Do not think of anything. 
Thoughts will come. Inhibit them. Refuse to think. Do this for 
several moments. It is essential to induce a passive state of mind 
and body. If the mind is not passive, it feels body sensations. If the 
body is not relaxed, its sensations interfere with the necessary men- 
tal passivity. Each reacts on the other. 

"The next step, after having turned off the light and closed 
your eyes and relaxed mind and body full length on the couch, is to 
reach for the top drawing of the pile on the table. Hold it in your 
hand over your solar plexus. Hold it easily, without clutching it. 
Now, completely relaxed, hold your mind a blank again. Hold it 
so for a few moments, then give the mental order to the unconscious 
mind to tell you what is on the paper you hold in your hand. Keep 
the eyes closed and the body relaxed, and give the order silently, 
and with as little mental exertion as possible. 

"However, it is necessary to give it clearly and positively, that 
is, with concentration on it. Say to the unconscious mind, 'I want 
the picture which is on this card, or paper, presented to my con- 
sciousness/ Say this with your mind concentrated on what you are 
saying. Repeat, as if talking directly to another self: 'I want to see 
what is on this card/ Then relax into blankness again and hold 
blankness a few moments, then try gently, without straining, to see 
whatever forms may appear on the void into which you look with 
closed eyes. Do not try to conjure up something to see; just wait 
expectantly and let something come. 

"My experience is that fragments of forms appear first. For 


example, a curved line, or a straight one, or two lines of a triangle. 
But sometimes the complete object appears; swiftly, lightly, dimly- 
drawn, as on a moving picture film. These mental visions appear 
and disappear with lightning rapidity, never standing still unless 
quickly fixed by a deliberate effort of consciousness. They are 
never in heavy lines, but as if sketched delicately, in a slightly 
deeper shade of gray than that of the mental canvas. A person not 
used to such experiments may at first fail to observe them on the 
gray background of the mind, on which they appear and disappear 
so swiftly. Sometimes they are so vague that one gets only a notion 
of how they look before they vanish. Then one must 'recall* this 
first vision. Recall it by conscious effort, which is not the same 
thing as the method of passive waiting by which the vision was first 
induced. Instead, it is as if one had seen with open eyes a fragment 
of a real picture, and now closes his eyes and looks at the memory 
of it and tries to 'see* it clearly. 

"It is necessary to recall this vision and make note of it, so as 
not to forget it. One is sure to forget it indeed it is his duty to do 
so in the process of the next step, which is one of blankness again. 
This blankness is, of course, a deliberate putting out of the con- 
scious mind of all pictures, including the one just visioned. One 
must now order the subconscious not to present it to the conscious 
mind's picture-film again unless it is the right picture, i .e., the one 
drawn on the card which is held in hand. Make the conscious mind 
blank again for a brief space. Then look again on the gray canvas 
of mind for a vision. This is to test whether the first vision came 
from subconscious guessing, or whether it came from the deeper 
mind from some other source than that of the subconscious, which 
is so apt to offer a 'guess/ or false picture. 

"Do this whole performance two or three times, and if the first 
vision persists in coming back, accept it. As soon as you have 
accepted it that is, decided that this is the correct vision turn on 
the light, and without looking at the card, or paper, which contains 
the real picture, pick up the writing pad and pencil and make a 
sketch of every detail of the vision-picture. This is a nuisance, as it 
interrupts concentration and the desired passivity. But it is abso- 
lutely necessary to record the vision in every detail, before one looks 
at the real picture, the one on the card he has been holding in hand. 


If one does not make a record of his vision in advance of looking 
at the card picture, he is certain to forget at least some part of it 
maybe something which is essential. Worse yet, he is apt to fool 
himself; the mind is given to self-deception. As soon as it sees the 
real drawing, it not only forgets the vision, but it is apt to imagine 
that it visioned the picture it now sees on the card, which may or 
may not be true. Imagination is a far more active function than 
the average person realizes. This conscious-subconscious mind is 
'a liar,' a weaver of fiction. It is the dream-mind, and also it is the 
mind of memory trains. 

"Do not omit fragments which seem to be out of place in a 
picture. These fragments may be the real things. If in doubt as to 
what the object of your vision is, do not try to guess. But if you 
have a 'hunch' that something you have seen is connected somehow 
with a watch, for example, or with an automobile, make a note of 
this 'hunch/ I use this popular word to indicate a real presentation 
from some true source, something deeper and more dependable 
than our own subconscious minds. I call this the 'deep mind' in 
order to have a name for it. I do not know what it is, of course I 
am only judging from the behavior of the phenomena. 

"Do not fail to record what seems to be a very stray fragment, 
for it may be a perfect vision of some portion of the real picture. 
Record everything, and then later you can compare it carefully with 
the real drawing. Of course, do not be fantastic in your conclusions. 
Do not think you have gotten a correct vision of an automobile 
because you saw a circle which resembled a wheel. However, I once 
saw a circle and felt that it was an automobile wheel felt it so 
vividly that I became overwhelmed with curiosity to see if my 'feel- 
Ing' was correct, and forthwith turned on the light and examined 
the real picture in my hand. I found that it was indeed the wheel 
of an automobile. But I do not do this kind of thing unless I have 
a very decided 'hunch,' as it tends to lead back to the natural im- 
pulse of the mind to 'guess' and guessing is one of the things one 
has to strive to avoid. To a certain extent, one comes to know a 
difference between a guess and a 'hunch/ j 

"The details of this technique are not to be taken as trifles. 
The whole issue of success or failure depends on them. At least, 
this is so in my case. Perhaps a spontaneous sensitive, or one who 


has a better method, has no such difficulties. I am just an average 
conscious-minded person, who set out deliberately to find a way to 
test this tremendously important question of telepathy and clair- 
voyance, without having to depend on a 'medium/ who might be 
fooling himself, or me. It was by this method of careful attention 
to a technique of details that I have found it possible to get tele- 
pathic messages and to see pictures on hidden cards, and symbolic 
pictures of the contents of books. 

^'This technique takes time, and patience, and training in the 
art of concentration. But this patience is in itself an excellent thing 
to learn, especially for nervous and sick people. The uses of mental 
concentration are too various and tremendously beneficial to enu- 
merate here. The average person has almost no power of concen- 
tration, as he will quickly discover by trying to hold his undivided 
attention on one simple object, such as a rose, or a bottle of ink, for 
just a few minutes. He will find that a thousand thoughts, usually 
association trains connected with the rose, or the ink, will appear 
on his mental canvas, interrupting his concentration. He will find 
that his mind behaves exactly like a moving-picture film, or a fire- 
works display. It is the division of attention that uses up energy, 
if I am not mistaken. 

"Of course this technique is not 'original.' I got it by selecting 
from hints here and there in my reading, and from my general study 
and observation of the behavior of the mind. 

/ "Among the difficulties to be overcome and this is one which 
is easily detected is the appearing of visions of objects one has 
observed in the environment just before closing the eyes. When I 
close my eyes to make the next test, I invariably find that the last 
picture, and my own drawing of it, and also the electric light bulb 
which I have lighted in order to see the last picture all these imme- 
diately appear on the horizon of my mind. It often takes quite a 
while to banish these memory-ghosts. And sometimes it is a mistake 
to banish them, as the picture you hold in your hand may be quite 
similar to the preceding one. If, therefore, a picture resembling 
the preceding continues obstinately to represent itself, I usually 
accept it, and often find that the preceding and present cards con- 
tain similar pictures. 

"Another difficulty is the way things sometimes appear in 


fragments, or sections, of the whole picture. A straight line may 
appear, and it may be either only a portion of the whole, or it may 
be all there is on the card. Then I have to resist the efforts of my 
imagination to speculate as to what object this fragment may be 
part of. For instance, I see a series of points, and have the impulse 
to 'guess 9 a star. I must say no to this guess-work, unless the inde- 
scribable 'hunch* feeling assures me it is a star. I must tell myself 
it may be indeed a part of a star, but, on the other hand, it may be 
a complete picture of the drawing in hand, perhaps the letter W, 
or M, or it may be a part of a pennant, or what not. Then I must 
start over, and hold blank a while. Then repeat the request to the 
deep mind for the true picture. Now I may get a more complete 
picture, or maybe this fragment reappears alone, or maybe it repeats 
itself upside-down, or doubled up in most any way. 

"I start all over once more and now I may get a series of frag- 
ments which follow each other and jump together as do the comic 
cartoons which are drawn on the screen with pen and ink. For 
instance, two points appear, then another appears separately and 
jumps to the first two, and joins up with them, then two more. The 
result is a star, and this may be the true picture. It usually is. But 
sometimes this is the subconscious mind, or perhaps the conscious, 
trying to finish the object as it has 'guessed' it should be. This error 
of allowing the conscious or the subconscious mind to finish the 
object is one to be most careful about. As one experiments, he 
realizes more and more that these two minds, the conscious and the 
subconscious, are really one, subconsciousness being only a disor- 
derly store-house of memories. The third, or 'deep mind 1 is appar- 
ently the one which gives us our psychic phenomena. Again I say, 
I do not know what this 'deep mind* is; I use the words merely to 
have a name for that 'other thing' which brings the message. / 

"The conscious mind, combined with the subconscious, not 
only wants to finish the picture, but decides sometimes to eliminate 
a detail which does not belong to what it has guessed should be 
there. For example, I will discuss the drawings which have been 
given as Figures 35, 35a, in this book. I 'visioned' what looked like 
a figure 5, except that at the top where there should be a small 
vertical line projecting toward the right, there was a flare of very 
long lines converging at one end. I consciously decided that the 


long lines were an exaggeration and multiplication of what should 
properly be at the top of a five, and that I should not accept them. 
Here was conscious mind making a false decision. But by obeying 
the rules I had laid down in advance, I was saved from this error of 
consciousness. I closed my eyes, gave a call for the true picture, and 
the lines appeared again, so I included them in my drawing. When 
I opened the envelope and looked at the picture inside, it was an 
oil derrick. So the flare of long lines was the real thing, while the 
figure 5 was the interloperat least, so I now consciously decided. 
I thought that the figure 5 and the flare of lines were entirely sepa- 
rate mental images, one following the other so rapidly that they 
appeared to belong together. 

"But again my conscious decision was in error. Several hours 
later, after I had put the whole matter out of my mind and had 
been attending to household duties, I suddenly remembered the 
paper jacket of a German edition of my husband's novel, 'Oil/ 
which was on a shelf in the next room to the one in which I had 
made my experiments. Why did I suddenly remember this book? 
I had not noticed it for a long time its jacket drawings were out of 
sight, as the book was wedged between many others on the book 
shelves in an inconspicuous place in the room. On one side of the 
jacket of this book was a picture of three oil derricks; on the other 
side was a large dollar mark, almost covering one entire side of the 
book. I had seen this jacket, had indeed taken special notice of it, 
at the time of its arrival from Germany. So here seems to have been 
a clear case of the subconscious mind at work during my experi- 
ment, adding to my true vision of an oil derrick, the subconsciously 
remembered dollar mark which looked like a figure 5, partly hid- 
den by the oil derrick in my vision. Here was a grand mix-up of the 
false guesses of consciousness and subconsciousness, and the true 
presentations from the 'deep mind/ 

"But this was not the end. This confusion in regard to the 
dollar mark went forward, in memory-trains to two other experi- 
ments. Several days later, I was trying a new set of drawings, and 
one of them caused in my mind a vision of the capital letter S. In- 
stantly, two parallel straight lines crossed it, turning it into a dollar 
mark: $. Then it became an S again without the lines. Then the 
lines came back. This strange behavior of my vision continued. I 


was in a quandary as to which to accept, the S or the f . Then there 
appeared an old-fashioned money-bag, such as I used to see in my 
father's bank as a child, full of small coins. It took its place in the 
vision beside the dollar mark. I decided with the usual erroneous 
consciousness that this money-bag was a hint from my real mind, 
so I accepted the dollar mark as correct. But it turned out not to be. 
When I looked at the drawing in hand it was a letter S. My sub- 
consciousness had supplied the money-bag, and the two parallel 

" Several days later, in a vision with a third set of drawings, I 
saw a letter S, and then at once the bag of small change appeared, 
but there were no parallel lines on the S. This time the real draw- 
ing was a dollar mark! So, my subconsciousness, as soon as the dollar 
mark had appeared in subconsciousness, had meddled again; it had 
remembered the last experiment and the scolding I had given it for 
its guess work, so it now subtracted the parallel lines from the new 
vision to make it correct, according to the last experiment. It had 
remembered the last experiment only, forgetting the first one, of 
the oil derrick, just as I had ordered it to do on the occasion of the 
second experiment. So, it subtracted the two parallel lines, but it 
added the remembered bag of money, which I had included in my 
scolding. From this kind of interference by the subconsciousness, 
I realized that it is indeed no simple matter to get things into con- 
sciousness from the 'deep mind' without guesses and additions and 
subtractions made by the subconsciousness. Why the subconscious 
should meddle, I do not know. But it does. Its behavior is exactly 
like that of the conscious mind, which is also prone to guessing. 
All this sounds fantastic to anyone who has not studied his mind. 
But I tell you how it seems to me. 

/'Maybe everything comes from the subconscious. Maybe there 
is no 'deep mind/ Maybe the subconscious gets its knowledge of 
what is on the drawing directly from the drawing, and is merely 
blundering around, adding details by guess-work to what it has seen 
incompletely. But I think that these experiments prove that this 
is not the case. I think a study of them shows that a true vision 
comes into the subconsciousness, not directly from the drawing, but 
from another mind which has some means of knowing, and sending 
to consciousness via the subconsciousness whatever I ask it for. Of 


course I cannot attempt to prove this here. It was one of the ques- 
tions to which I was seeking an answer, and the result seems to point 
to the existence of a deeper mind, showing how its behavior is quite 
different from that of the subconscious./ 

"I wanted to find out if the true vision could in any way be 
distinguished from 'imagination/ or these busy guesses of the sub- 
consciousness. To help myself in this matter, I first made an exam- 
ination of exactly how these guesses come. I said to myself: every 
thought that ever comes to consciousness, excepting those due to 
direct outside stimulation, may proceed from some deeper source, 
and by subconscious memory-trains attaching to them, appear to 
be the work of subconsciousness. So I shut my eyes and made my 
mind blank, without calling on my mind to present any definite 
thing. I had no drawing in my hand. After a brief space of blank- 
ness, I relaxed the enforced blankness and waited, dreamily, for 
what might come. A picture soon came, with a whole memory- 
train. First a girl in a large garden hat, then a garden path and 
flowers bordering it, then a spade, a wheelbarrow, and so on things 
associated in my memory with a girl in a garden hat. As to where 
the girl in the hat came from, I know not. As to why she should 
come instead of any other of billions of things seen by me during 
my life, I know not. I had not asked my mind for her. The question 
of why she came is interesting. 

"But it was easy to account for the other things the association- 
train. I learned from this experiment, and several repetitions of it, 
that something always came a girl, or a steamship, or the fact that 
I had not attended to some household duty, or what not and a train 
of associated ideas followed. I learned, in a more or less vague way, 
how these things behaved, and how I felt about them. This enabled 
me to notice, when later I got a true vision, that there was a differ- 
ence between the way this true vision came and the way the 'idle* 
visions came. When the true visions came, there usually came with 
them a 'something' which I call a 'hunch/ There was, of course, 
always in my consciousness the question: is this the right thing, or 
not? When the true vision came, this question seemed to receive 
an answer, 'yes/ as if some intelligent entity was directly inform- 
ing me. 


"This was not always the case. At times no answer came, or at 
least, if it came, it was obscured by guesses. But usually it did, after 
I had watched for it, and a sort of thrill of triumph came with it, 
quite different from the quiet way in which the money-bag had 
appeared in answer to my uncertainty. The subconscious answers 
questions, and its answers are always false; its answers come quietly, 
like a thief in the night. But the 'other' mind, the 'deep mind' 
answers questions, too, and these answers come, not quietly, but as 
if by 'inspiration/ whatever that is with a rustling of wings, with 
gladness and conviction. These two minds seem different from each 
other. One lies and rambles; the other sings, and is truthful. 

<But do not misunderstand me. I am not a religious convert. 
I am searching for knowledge, and recording what I find. Others 
on this search may have found these same things, but the conclu- 
sions they have drawn may not turn out to be the ones I shall draw. 
, "One or two other things of interest should perhaps be men- 
tioned. First, I found that, in doing a series of several drawings, the 
percentage of successes was higher in the first three attempts. Then 
there began to be failures, alternating with successes. This may 
have been due to the fact that the memory-pictures of these first 
three experiments now constituted a difficulty. So much attention 
had to be given to inhibiting these memory-pictures, and in decid- 
ing whether or not they were to be inhibited, pr it may be due to 
some other cause, such as fatigue or boredom. > 

"The second detail is that during the earliest experiments, I 
developed a headache. I think this was due to the fact that I strained 
my closed eyes trying to see with them. I mean, of course, trying to 
see a vision, not the card in my hand. Using the eyes to see with is 
a habit, and habits are not easily overcome. I soon learned not to 
use my eyes, at least not in a strained way, and this was the end of 
the headaches. However, this use of the eyes in telepathy may per- 
haps mean more than a mere habit. The mental canvas on which 
these Visions' are projected seems to be spread in the eyes, and it is 
the eyes which seem to see them despite the fact that the room may 
be dark, the eyes closed, and the drawing on the paper be wrapped 
in thick covering and not within normal range of the eyes. But this 
may be due to the habit of associating all pictures with your eyes." 


o much for the art of voluntary mind-reading. In conclusion 
I, the husband, attempt to say a few words about what these phe- 
nomena mean, and how they come about. 

This attempt involves me in a verbal duel with my wife, which 
lasts into the small hours of morning. It involves the everlasting 
debate between the vitalists and the mechanists, which had best be 
left to Dr. Watson and Professor McDougall, and the others who 
are no more able than I am to look at the neurons of the brain in 
action, to see what happens. But I insist that until Craig and Dr. 
Watson, Professor Eddington and Mrs. Eddy have found out posi- 
tively whether the universe is all mind or all matter, I must go on 
speaking in the old-fashioned way, as if there were two worlds, the 
physical and the mental, two sets of phenomena which interact one 
upon the other continuously, even though the manner of this hap- 
pening is beyond comprehension. 

With this much apology, I obtain permission to put forth my 
humble guess as to the part played by mental concentration in the 
causing of telepathy, clairvoyance, and trance phenomena. It seems 
to me that the process of intense concentration may cause the nerv- 
ous energy, or brain energy, whatever it is, to be withdrawn from 
some of the brain centers and transferred to others; and it may be 
this displacement and disturbance of balance which accounts for 
such phenomena as catalepsy, automatism, and somnambulism. 
Portions of the mind which are ordinarily below the level of con- 
sciousness are raised to more intense forms of activity. New levels 
of mind are tapped, new "personalities" or faculties are brought 
into action, and persons under hypnotism develop mental powers 
they do not consciously possess. 

That it is intense concentration upon one suggestion the nar- 
rowing of the attention to one focus which produces the cataleptic 
trance is something which my wife set out to prove, and by going 
close to the border-line she feels that she did prove it. The rigidity 



began at the extremities and crept rapidly over the body. In spite 
of my protests, Craig insisted that she was going the whole way, 
and asked me to stand by and make some tests. I was to wait three 
minutes, and then lift her up by the feet. I did so, and found an 
extraordinary thing the body was perfectly rigid, like a log of 
wood, except at the neck! When I lifted her by her feet, the neck 
bent, so that the head remained on the pillow, while the feet were 
raised at least a yard in the air. Later, when Craig had relaxed, she 
told me that she had known what was happening; there had been 
one point of consciousness left, and she had the belief that she could 
let that go in another moment, but was afraid to do so, because she 
might not come out again. For an instant, she had felt that strange 
terror one feels at the moment he ceases to struggle against the 
fumes of gas or ether, and plunges into oblivion. The difference 
is that, in the case of gas or ether, one cannot hold on to conscious- 
ness; but in the case of the cataleptic state, he can recall his receding 
consciousness. Craig, of course, had not concentrated with com- 
plete attention to one idea; one portion of her mind was concen- 
trated upon achieving rigidity, while another was watching and 
protesting against oblivion. 

Dr. Morton Prince wrote to Craig: "You are playing with 
powerful and dangerous forces/' And so she dropped this form of 
experiment. But more should be known about these trances, which 
often occur spontaneously, and can be caused by fearthat is to say, 
an intense concentration on the idea of escape from danger, which 
produces a tension amounting to paralysis. In such cases there are 
a number of new dangers; one being that some doctor will try to 
restore you with drugs and wrong suggestions. Every suggestion of 
fear on the part of the onlookers must be avoided in case of trances, 
for the subconscious mind of the victim hears every word, and 
believes it; also telepathy has to be remembered. One must not 
only speak quietly and firmly, repeating that everything is all right, 
and that the person will come out safely; one must also think this. 
The trance may last a long time, but keep calm and sure of success, 
and keep the doctor and the undertaker away. The condition of 
catalepsy is more common than is realized, and it is unpleasant to 
think how many persons are embalmed while in this condition. 


All this sounds disturbing, but it has nothing to do with our 
telepathy experiments, in which the state o concentration is not 
one of tension accompanied by the suggestion of rigidity, or of fear, 
but on the contrary is a state of relaxation, accompanied by the 
suggestion of control, or supervision. This matter of supervision 
has been carefully set forth by Craig in her statement. It is one of 
the mind's great mysteries: how, while thinking about nothing, 
you can not only remember to give a suggestion, but can also act 
upon it. Craig insists that we have three minds; and she has in this 
the backing of William McDougall, an Englishman, who was called 
the "dean" of American psychologists. McDougall talks about the 
various "monads" of the mind; so let us say that one "monad" 
gives an order to a second "monad" to become blank, after it has 
given an order to a third to present to the first a picture. 

The psychic Jan gives such "autosuggestions" to himself when 
he goes into a trance, and tells his trance mind to bring him out at 
a certain moment. How that trance mind can measure time as 
exactly as a clock is another of the mysteries; but that it happens is 
beyond doubt. My wife took Jan to a group of scientists in Boston, 
and several of them held watches and expressed their surprise at 
what Jan was able to do. It is obvious that when the psychic lets 
himself be buried six feet under the ground in an ordinary pine- 
wood coffin, he is staking his life upon his certainty that he will not 
come out of the state of lethargy until after he has been dug up. 

He also stakes it upon the hope that the physicians who have 
the test in charge will have sufficient sense to realize the importance 
of having him dug out at the time agreed. In one case they were 
several minutes late, and Jan nearly suffocated. I never saw one of 
these burials, because Craig obtained his promise not to do them 
after she knew him; but I have talked with several physicians who 
watched and directed all the details, and I have a moving-picture 
film of one. 


xVj_ention telepathy In company, and almost everyone has a 
story to telL You can find a clairvoyant to tell you about yourself 
for a dollarand maybe she is a fraud, but then again, maybe she is 
a person with a gift which she does not understand, and the police 
throw her into jail because they don't understand it either. I am 
sorry if I aid the mass of fraud which I know exists in this field, but 
there is no power of man which may not and will not be abused. 
The person who invented high explosives and made possible great 
tunnels and bridges, also made possible the destruction of the Lou- 
vain library. The person who makes a dynamo may electrocute 

In spite of all fraud, I am convinced that there are thousands 
of genuine clairvoyants and psychics. My friend Will Irwin told 
me recently how he spent a year or so collecting material and writ- 
ing an exposure of fraud, "The Medium Game/' published in Col- 
lier's Weekly some twenty years ago. At the end of his labors he 
went, on sudden impulse, into a "parlor" on Sixth Avenue, a cheap 
neighborhood of New York, and a fat old woman in a greasy wrap- 
per took his dollar, and held his hand in hers, and told him things 
which he believed were known to no human being but Will Irwin. 

"What is the use of it?" some will ask. I reply with another 
question: "What was the use of the lightning which Franklin 
brought down from the clouds on his kite-string?" No use that 
Franklin ever knew; yet today we make his lightning turn the 
wheels of industry, and move great railroad systems, and light a 
hundred million homes, and spread jazz music and cigarette adver- 
tising thousands of miles in every direction. It is an axiom of the 
scientist that every scrap of knowledge will be put to use sooner or 
later; get it, and let the uses wait. The discovery of the cause of 
bubonic plague was made possible because some foolish-minded 
entomologist had thought it worth-while to collect information 
about the fleas which prey upon the bodies of rats and ground 



I know a certain Wall Street operator who employed a "psy- 
chic" to sit in at his business conferences, and tell him if the other 
fellow was honest. I believe it didn't work very well; perhaps the 
circumstances were not favorable to concentration. Needless to say, 
Craig and I have no interest in such uses to be made of our knowl- 
edge. What telepathy means to my wife is this: it seems to indicate 
a common substratum of mind, underlying our individual minds, 
and which we can learn to tap. Figure the conscious mind as a tree, 
and the subconscious mind as the roots of that tree: then what of 
the earth in which the tree grows, and from which it derives its sus- 
tenance? What currents run through that earth, affecting all the 
trees of the forest? If one tree falls, the earth is shaken and may not 
the other trees feel the impulse? 

In other words, we are apparently getting hints of a cosmic 
consciousness, or cosmic unconsciousness: some kind of mind stuff 
which is common to us all, and which we can bring into our indi- 
vidual consciousness. Why is it not sensible to think that there may 
be a universal mind-stuff, just as there is a universal body-stuff, of 
which we are made, and to which we return? 

When Craig orders her mind, or some portion of it, or faculty 
of it, to get what is in Bob's mind, while Bob is forty miles away 
and when her mind does that, what are we to picture as happening? 
If I am correct in my guess, that mind and body are two aspects of 
one reality, then we shall find some physical form of energy being 
manifested, just as we do when we communicate by sound waves. 
The human brain is a storage battery, capable of sending impulses 
over the nerves. Why may it not be capable of sending impulses by 
means of some other medium, known or unknown? Why may there 
not be such a thing as brain radio? 

Certainly we know this, that every particle of energy in the 
universe affects to some slight extent every other particle- The 
problem of detecting such energy is merely one of getting a suffi- 
ciently sensitive device. Who can say that our thoughts are not 
causing vibrations? Who can set a limit to the distance they may 
travel, or to the receiving powers of another brain, in some way or 
other attuned thereto? Any truly scientific person will admit that 
this is a possibility, and that it is purely a question of experiment- 
ing, to find out if it does happen, and how. 


Again, consider the problem of clairvoyance, suggested by 
Craig's ability to tell what is inside a book she holds in her hand 
without seeing it, or to reproduce drawings when no human mind 
knows what drawing she holds. How are we to figure that as hap- 
pening? Shall we say that brain vibrations affect material things 
such as paper, and leave impressions which endure for a long time, 
possibly forever? Can these affect another brain, as in the case of 
a bit of radium giving off emanations? It seems to me correct to say 
that, theoretically, it is inevitable. Every particle of energy that 
has ever been manifested in the universe goes on producing its 
effects somewhere, somehow, and the universe is forever different 
because of that happening. The soil of Britain is still shaking with 
the tramp of Caesar's legions, two thousand years old. Who can say 
that some day we may not have instruments sensitive enough to 
detect such traces of energy? On the very day that I am reading the 
galley proofs of this book, I find in my morning paper an Associated 
Press dispatch, from which I clip a few paragraphs. 

"A fundamental discovery in photography that takes the 'pic- 
tures' directly on cold, hard untreated metal without the usual 
photographer's medium of a sensitized plate was made public to- 
night at Cornell University. It reveals that seemingly impervious 
metal records on its surface unseen impressions from streams of 
electrons and that these marks can be brought into visibility by the 
right kind of a 'developer/ exactly as photographic images are 
brought out on sensitized paper. . . . 

"While studying sensitivity of photographic plates to electron 
rays it suddenly was realized that polished metal surfaces might be 
able to pick up impressions of these beams, and when tests were 
made they showed that not only could such records be made on 
metals, but the amazing fact appeared that some metals are almost 
as sensitive as photographic film, and for very low velocity electrons 
much more sensitive. . . . 

"This young physicist one day was looking at the rough spots 
produced on the metal target of an x-ray tube by electron bombard- 
ment. Such spots are commonplace, familiar sights to laboratory 
workers. It occurred to Dr. Carr that perhaps long before the elec- 
trons produced the rough place they made an invisible impression, 
which might be 'developed* in the same manner that the still invis- 


ible Image on a photo is brought out by putting It Into a developing 
bath. Can shot the electron rays at gold plates and developed them 
with mercury vapor, he shot them at silver and developed with 
Iodine, he used hydrochloric add to develop zinc plates and iodine 
to develop copper/' 

And now, if x-rays leave a permanent record on metal, why 
might not brain-rays, or thought-rays, leave a record upon a piece 
of paper? Why might not such energies be reflected back to another 
brain, as light is reflected by a mirror? Or perhaps the record might 
stay as some other form of energy, turned back into brain-rays or 
thought-rays by the percipient. We are familiar with this in the 
telephone, where sound vibrations are turned Into electrical vibra- 
tions, and in this form transported across a continent and under an 
ocean, and then turned back into sound vibrations once again. 

That mental activities do leave some kind of record on matter 
seems certain; at any rate, it is the basic concept of the materialistic 
psychologist. For what Is memory, to the materialist, but some kind 
of record upon brain cells? He compares these cells to photoelectric 
cells, and imagines a lot of stored up records which we can consult. 
If now it should be found that such memory records are impressed, 
not merely upon living brain cells, but upon the molecules or elec- 
trons which compose any form of matter, what would be so incred- 
ible about that? 

I have gone this far, in the effort to meet my materialist friends 
halfway. For my part, I have no metaphysics; I am content to say 
that I do not know what matter is, nor what mind is, nor how 
they Interact. If you want to realize the inadequacies of the ma- 
terialistic dogma, so far as concerns this special field, you may 
consult the work of Dr. Rudolph TIschner, a qualified scientist of 
Germany, whose book, Telepathy and Clairvoyance, Is published 
in translation by Harcourt, Brace and Company. The last chapter, 
called "Theory," deals with the suggested explanations in more 
detail than I have the space for here. 



.21, 1929. I am over at the office fixing up this manu- 
script to send to the publisher; and just as I have it nicely wrapped, 
it has to be opened again for this is what has happened. Craig, 
with her anxiety complex, has had this thought: "Here is Upton 
committing himself in this public way, on a subject about which 
people know so little and suspect so much; and suppose this faculty, 
whatever it is, should be gone in these last few weeks, while I have 
been fussing over spring housecleaning! Suppose I should find I 
can never do it again!" 

She has to make sure all over again. She has in her desk a fat 
envelope marked: "To try/' A lot of old drawings, left-overs from 
different series that she has tried and failed on during the past 
several months; some that she herself has drawn for friends; some 
that she was interrupted while doing a job lot, in short. She does 
not know how many, as she has stuck them in from time to time, 
and never looked into the envelope; but it is well filled. Now she 
takes out some drawings, with averted eyes, and lies down and 
tries them. The house is quiet, a good opportunity, so she does 
nine drawings, and there is only one complete failure in the lot. 

One is a marvel as good as any. It is a drawing I had made, 
a donkey's head and neck, with a wide collar. Craig writes: "Cow's 
head in 'stock* " a "stock" being in Mississippi a wooden yoke 
made to keep cattle from jumping fences. She draws the head of 
the so-called "cow" and the "stock"; it is a perfect donkey's head, 
facing just as mine does. 

And then there is a duck, about to eat a snail. Such a jolly 
duck, and such a wheely snail shell! Craig has made this drawing 
to amuse the little daughter of Bob and Dolly, who had a pet duck, 
called "Mary Ann/' fed on snails. Craig made this drawing several 
months ago, to let the child "concentrate" on, and try telepathy 
like the grown-ups. And now, with this drawing under her hand, 
Craig writes: "See wheels. Think of children. Has to do with 
children." The drawing of the snail shell is plainly a lot of "wheels." 



Now, of course, Craig had previously seen every one of these 
drawings, and so they were all in her subconscious mind. But these 
drawings had never been seen by her at the same time. They were 
put into the envelope, some at one time, some at another. Now 
she has taken out a few at random. What a jumble for any sub- 
conscious mind to keep track of! How is Craig's mind to know 
which drawings she has taken out, and which one she is holding 
under her hand? 

Again we have something more than telepathy. For no human 
mind knows what drawings she has taken from that envelope. No 
human mind but her own even knows that she is trying an experi- 
ment. Either there is some superhuman mind, or else there is 
something that comes from the drawings, some way of "seeing/* 
other than the way we know and use all the time. Make what you 
can of this, but don't laugh at it, for most certainly it happens. 



"ctober, 1929. At my wife's Insistence, I have held up this 
book for six months, in order to think it over, and have the manu- 
script read by friends whose opinions we value. A score or more 
have read it, and made various suggestions, many of which I have 
accepted. Some of the reactions of these friends may be of interest 
to the reader. 

The news that I was taking up "psychic" matters brought me 
letters both of curiosity and protest. My friend Isaac Goldberg of 
Boston reported the matter in the Haldeman-Julius publications 
under the title: "Sinclair Goes Spooky." I hope that when he has 
read this book, he will find another adjective. My friends, both 
radical and respectable, must realize that I have dealt here with 
facts, in as patient and thorough a manner as I have ever done in 
my life. It is foolish to be convinced without evidence, but it is 
equally foolish to refuse to be convinced by real evidence. 

There came to me a letter of warning from a good comrade, 
T. H. Bell of Los Angeles, an elderly Scotchman who has grown 
up in the Socialist movement, and known the old fighters of the 
days when I was a child. He begged me not to jeopardize my 
reputation; so I thought he would be a good test for the manu- 
script, and asked him to read it. Some of his suggestions I accepted, 
and the work is the better for them. But Comrade Bell was not 
able to believe that Craig's drawings could have come by telepathy, 
for the reason that it would mean that he was "abandoning the 
fundamental notions" on which his "whole life has been based." 

Comrade Bell brought many arguments against my thesis, and 
this was a service, because it enables me to answer my critics in 
advance. First, what is the value of my memory? Can I be sure 
that it does not "accommodate itself too easily to the statement 
Sinclair wishes to believe?" My answer is that few of the important 
cases in the book rest upon my memory; they rest upon records 
written down at once. They rest upon drawings which were made 



according to a plan devised in advance, and then duly filed in enve- 
lopes numbered and dated. Also, my memory has been checked by 
my wife's, who is a fanatic for accuracy, and has caused me torment, 
through a good part of our married life, by insisting upon going 
over my manuscripts and censoring every phrase. Also Bob and 
Dollie and my secretary have read this narrative, and checked the 
statements dealing with them. 

Next objection, that I am "a man without scientific training." 
The acceptance of that statement depends upon the definition of 
the word "scientific." If it includes the social sciences, then I have 
had twenty-five years of very rigid training. I have made investiga- 
tions and published statements, literally by thousands, which were 
criminal libels unless they were true and exact; yet I have never 
had any kind of libel suit brought against me in my life. As to the 
scientific value of the particular experiments described in this 
book, the reader can do his own judging, for they have been de- 
scribed in detail. I don't see how scientific training could have 
increased our precautions. We have outlined our method to sci- 
entists, and none has suggested any change. 

Next, the fact that in the past I have shown myself "naive and 
credulous at times." No doubt I have; but I have learned by such 
experiences, and I am not so naiVe and credulous as when I was 
younger. Neither do I see how these qualities can play much part 
in the present matter. I surely know the conditions under which 
I made my drawings, and whether I had them under my eyes while 
my wife was making her drawings in another room; I know about 
the ones I sealed in envelopes, and which were never out of my sight. 
As for my wife, she certainly has nothing of the qualities of naivet 
and credulity. She was raised in a family of lawyers, and was given 
the training and skeptical point of view of a woman of the world. 
"Trust people, but watch them," was old Judge Kimbrough's 
maxim; and following it too closely has almost made a pessimist 
of his daughter. 

Next, that Craig is "in poor health." That is true, but I do 
not see how it matters here. She has often been in pain, but it has 
never affected her judgment. She chose her own times for experi- 
menting, when she felt in the mood, and her mind was always clear 
and keen for the job. 


Next, "a husband and wife are a bad pair to make telepathic 
experiments. Living so much together, their common life does tend 
to make them think of the same thing at the same time." This is 
true; but how does it account for the half-dozen successes with a 
brother-in-law, twenty or thirty with a secretary, and many with 
Jan? How does it account for the covers and jackets of books in 
which I had no interest, but which had come to me by chance, and 
which Craig had never even glanced at, so far as she remembers? 

It is true that in the early days most of our drawings were of 
obvious things which lay about the house, scissors, table-forks, 
watches, chairs, telephones; so there was a better chance of guess 
work. How much chance, was determined by my son and his wife, 
who, hearing that Craig and I were trying telepathy experiments, 
decided to try a few also without knowing anything about the 
technique. They also drew scissors, table-forks, watches, chairs, 
telephones, and such common objects. The only trouble was that 
when David tried to reproduce Betty's drawings, he drew the chair 
where she had drawn the scissors, and drew the watch where she 
had drawn the table-fork, and so on. They did not get a single 

I think that if you will go back and look over those drawings 
as a whole, you must admit that the objects were as varied as the 
imagination could make them. I do not see how any one could 
choose a set of objects less likely to be guessed than the series which 
I have numbered from 5 to 12 a bird's nest full of eggs and sur- 
rounded by leaves, a spiked helmet, a desert palm-tree, a star with 
eight double points, a coconut palm, a puppy chasing a string, a 
flying bat, a Chinese mandarin, and a boy's foot with a roller-skate 
on it. None of these objects has any relationship whatever to my 
life, or to Craig's, or to our common life. To say that a wife can 
guess such a series, because she knows her husband's mind so well, 
seems to me out of all reason. 

Next, the point that some of the cases are not convincing by 
themselves. I am familiar with this method of argument, having 
encountered it with others of my books. Let me beg you to note 
that the cases are not taken by themselves, but are taken as a whole. 
I can think, for example, of several ways by which Craig might have 
known that I had put my little paper of written notes into the 


pocket of my gray coat, or that I had left some medical apparatus 
under the bathtub at the office. She might have seen these things, 
and then have forgotten it, and her subconscious mind might have 
brought back to her the location of the objects, but failed to remind 
her of the previous seeing. If such cases had stood alone, I would 
not have thought it worth while to write this book. 

The same thing applies to Craig's production of German 
words. Having spent several weeks with me in Germany, and hav- 
ing known many Germans, she no doubt has German words in her 
subconscious mind. This also applies to certain dream cases. Any 
one who wants to can go through the book and pick out a score of 
cases which can be questioned on various grounds. Perhaps it 
would be wiser for me to cut out all except the strongest cases. But 
I rely upon your common sense, to realize that the strongest cases 
have caused me to write the book; and that the weaker ones are 
given for whatever additional light they may throw upon the prob- 

If you want to deal fairly with the book, here is what you have 
to explain. How did it happen that at a certain agreed hour when 
Bob at Pasadena drew a table-fork and dated and signed the draw- 
ing, Craig in Long Beach wrote: "See a table-fork, nothing else/' 
and dated and signed her words? If you call this a coincidence, how 
are you going to account for the chair, and the watch, and the circle 
with the hole in the middle, and the sense of pain and fear, and the 
spreading black stain called blood, all reproduced under the same 
perfect conditions? I say that if you call all this coincidence, you 
are violating the laws of probability as we know them. I say that 
there are only two possible explanations, either telepathy, or that 
my wife and her brother-in-law were hoaxing me. 

But if you want to assume a hoax, you have to face the fact 
that my wife a few days later was reproducing a series of drawings 
which I made and kept in front of my eyes in a separate room from 
her, in such a position that she could not see them if she wanted to. 
If I thought it worth while, I could draw you a diagram of the place 
where she sat and the place where I sat, and convince you that 
neither mirrors, nor a hole in the wall, nor any other device would 
have enabled my wife to see my drawings, until I took them to her 


and compared them with her drawings. The only way you can 
account for that series of successes is to say that I am in on the hoax. 

My good friend and comrade, Tom Bell, does not suggest that 
I am in it; but others may say it, so I will answer. Let me assure 
you, there is no reason in the world why I should take the field 
on behalf of the doctrine of telepathy except my conviction that 
it has been proved. I don't belong to any church which teaches 
telepathy. I don't hold any doctrine which is helped by it. I don't 
make any money by advocating or practicing it. There is no more 
reason why I should be concerned to vindicate telepathy, than there 
is for my coming out in support of the Catholic doctrine of the 
Immaculate Conception, or the Mormon doctrine of Urim and 
Thummim, or the Koreshan doctrine that the earth is a hollow 
sphere and we live on the inside of it. 

I assure you I arn as cold-blooded about the thing as a man 
can be. In fact, I don't like to believe in telepathy, because I don't 
know what to make of it, and I don't know to what view of the 
universe it will lead me, and I would a whole lot rather give all my 
time to my muckraking job which I know by heart. I don't expect 
to sell especially large quantities of this book; 1 am sure that by 
giving the same amount of time and energy to other books I have 
in mind, I could earn several times as much money. In short, there 
isn't a thing in the world that leads me to this act, except the convic- 
tion which has been forced upon me that telepathy is real, and that 
loyalty to the nature of the universe makes it necessary for me to 
say so. 

My friend and publisher Charles Boni thinks that I should 
write this book without protestations; taking a dignified position, 
sure that my readers will trust me. But as it happens, I have read, 
not merely the literature of psychic research, but also the literature 
in opposition to it, and I know the arguments advanced by persons 
who are unwilling to change their "fundamental notions." It seems 
common sense to answer here the objections which are certain to 
be made. 

I submitted this manuscript to the two leading psychologists 
of America, Morton Prince and William McDougall. Dr. Prince 
was taken by death before he found time to read it, but Professor 
McDougall read it, and has stated his reactions in the preface. In 


writing to me, he expressed the hope that my wife would be able 
to make some of these telepathy tests under the observation of well- 
known scientists. In replying, I assured him that my wife and I 
shared this hope; but whether it can ever be realized is a problem 
for the future. All Craig's work so far has depended upon a state 
of complete peace and relaxation. As she has pointed out, it is a 
matter of "undivided concentration/' and even such disturbing 
things as light and noise are an interference. One friend who has 
tried to experiment lately at our instigation gave it up because of 
automobile horns in the street outside. She declared that these had 
never disturbed her before, but that the effort not to hear them 
when concentrating only caused her to concentrate on the horns, 
and so threatened to give her a case of "nerves." 

Whether Craig would be able to get the necessary state of 
mind in the presence of strangers, skeptical or possibly hostile, Is 
a problem yet to be solved. Unless we are going to beg the question, 
we have to assume that telepathy may be a reality; and If it be a 
reality, then certainly what Is in the other person's mind makes 
a difference, and certainly it is a serious matter to ask a woman In 
delicate health to open her mind to the moods of strangers. Some 
day In the future Craig is going to make the test, but whether it 
succeeds or fails will not alter, so far as I am concerned, what has 
already happened in my presence. 

Another of my friends who read the manuscript was Floyd 
Dell, and he thinks that readers of my books will wish to know to 
what extent, if any, my interest in the subject of telepathy is going 
to change my attitude to the struggle for social justice. To that I 
reply that I have been interested In psychic research for the past 
thirty-five years, ever since, as a youth, I met Minot J. Savage; but 
this has not kept me from believing ardently in the abolition of 
parasitism, exploitation, and war. While the telepathy experiments 
were going on I wrote "Boston," a novel of some 325,000 words, in 
less than a year. While I am consulting with my friends about 
this manuscript, I am writing a novel, "Mountain City," which I 
hope my Socialist friends will find of interest. The only discovery 
that can weaken my interest In the economic problem will be one 
which enables human beings to live without food, clothing, and 


shelter. But in the meantime, I see no reason why Socialists are 
required to be ignorant of psychology. 

James Fuchs, another patient critic of my writings, thinks I 
appear naive in this book, and should reveal some knowledge of 
the vast literature on the subject. My reason for not doing so is 
that very vastness; one would need several volumes to handle it. 
In the Proceedings of the American and British Societies for Psychi- 
cal Research lies buried endless evidence on the subject; but scien- 
tific authority remains for the most part uninterested in that 
evidence, and would not be interested in my rehash of it. I have 
written this book to tell my readers and friends what I myself have 
seen with my own eyes. That is my job, and I leave the rest to others 
who are better qualified. 

Fuchs reminds me that "umbilical sensory perception* * is a 
well-known psychic phenomenon, and that Craig, in holding the 
drawings over her solar plexus, is repeating the method of Justinus 
Kemer (1786-1862), about whom you will find an article in the 
"Encyclopedia Britannica." Craig knew about that from various 
sources, and some of her experiments were designed to test the 
explanation. I made eight drawings and laid them face down on the 
table by her couch, perhaps three feet from her head. I put them 
there while she was out of the room, and I sat and watched, to be 
sure she did not ever touch them. She lay on the couch and made 
some notes and drawings which reproduced the essential features 
of half a dozen of my drawings all at once I So, if Craig has an 
umbilical eye, she must also have one in the side of her head which 
can see through several thicknesses of paper. 

My daughter-in-law at that time also made suggestions which 
I accepted. She spoke for the new generation of radicals, saying: 
"The book aroused a storm of metaphysical speculation in my 
mind, and I could wax eloquent with slight provocation." This 
is different from refusing to "abandon the fundamental notions on 
which my whole life has been based/' 



"ne Interesting point I observe: in any company where 
the subject of this manuscript is brought up, invariably some per- 
son declares that he or she has had such experiences. One lady, 
highly educated, assured me that she and her husband had devel- 
oped telepathy to a point where it served them on a lonely ranch 
in the place of telegraph and telephone. Only a few days ago I met 
at luncheon Bruno Walter, orchestra leader, who had come from 
Germany to conduct conceits in the Hollywood Bowl. Mr. Walter 
narrated to me the incident which follows: 

While conducting in some middle western city, he was a guest 
at a luncheon, and found himself becoming very ill. He explained 
matters to his host, who called a taxicab, but this cab did not arrive, 
and Mr. Walter, in great distress, took his hat and left the house, 
saying that he would look for a cab. Turning the corner of the 
street, he came upon his manager, driving a car, and hailed him. 
"A most fortunate accident!" exclaimed the sick man, but the 
manager assured him that it was no accident; about half an hour 
previously, the manager had been seized by an intense feeling that 
Mr. Walter was in trouble, and had been moved to get into his 
car and drive. He did not know where Mr. Walter had gone, but 
simply followed his impulse to drive in a certain direction. 

Another incident, told me by Fremont Older, editor of the San 
Francisco Call, and a veteran fighter in the cause of social justice. 
Older had seen many demonstrations of telepathy, and was com- 
pletely convinced of its reality. A friend of his, living on a ranch, 
employed a cook named Sam who had the gift, and agreed to give 
a demonstration for the Olders. Sam asked Older to get a book and 
wrap it in thick paper, and Sam would tell the name of the book and 
the author. Older went out to his car, but could find no book, only 
a folder of maps, which he wrapped in several thicknesses of paper. 
Sam put the package to his head, and after a minute or two said, 
"This is not a book, it is a map or something. Why don't you get 



me a regular book?" So Older went to his car again and found a 
book belonging to his wife, and wrapped it with care and tied it. 
Sam put it to his head, and began to spell letters, and finally stated 
as follows: "Julia France and her Times, by Gertrude Atherton, 
published by the Macmillan Company/' This was correct. Sam 
added: "I get another name. What has Ernest Hopkins got to do 
with this book?" Older and his wife were dumbfounded; for the 
name was that of a member of the newspaper staff who had been 
asked to review the book, but Mrs. Older had taken the copy from 
him because at the last moment she wanted something to read on 
her trip. 

As this book is going to the printer, my attention is called to 
the fact that Dr. Carl Brack of Berlin has published a book entitled 
"Experimented Telepathic," in which he reports a series of tests 
closely resembling those here described. The main difference is 
that he used hypnotized subjects, four different young men, as the 
recipients of his telepathic messages. He made drawings at home, 
and locked them in a large portfolio, which he placed in an ad- 
joining room from the subject, two or three yards distant through 
a wall. He himself sat in front of the hypnotized subject, and con- 
centrated upon "sending" one of the drawings. Under these 
conditions, in a total of 1 1 1 experiments, one-third were successful. 
The Berlin correspondent of the "Scientific American" reported 
these tests in the issue of May, 1924, where those interested may 
read the details, and inspect twelve of the drawings. The tests were 
conducted in the presence of various physicians and scientists; and 
I am interested in a recent comment on the matter by a German 
physician living in Mexico City: "Brack's work has gone almost 
wholly unnoticed." 

I say to scientific men, that such work deserves to be noticed. 
There is new knowledge here, close to the threshold, waiting for 
us; and we should not let ourselves be repelled by the seeming 
triviality of the phenomena, for it is well known that some of the 
greatest discoveries have come from the following up of just such 
trivial clews. 

What did Benjamin Franklin have to go on when he brought 
the lightning down from the clouds on the string of a kite? Just 
a few hints, picked up in the course of the previous hundred years; 


a few traces of electricity noted by accident. The fact that you got 
a spark if you stroked a cat's fur; the fact that you got the same kind 
of a spark by rubbing amber, and a bigger one by storing the energy 
in a glass jar lined with tinfoil that was all men had as promise 
of the miracles of our time, dynamos and superpower, telegraph 
and telephone, x-ray surgery, radio, wireless, television, and new 
miracles just outside our door. If now it be a fact that there is a 
reality behind the notions of telepathy and clairvoyance, to which 
so many investigators are bearing testimony all over the world, who 
can set limits to what it may mean to the future? What new powers 
of the human mind, what ability to explore the past and future, the 
farthest deeps of space, and those deeps of our own minds, no less 
vast and marvelous? 

To set limits to such possibilities is not to be scientific, it is 
merely to be foolish. The true scientist sets no limits to human 
powers, he merely asks that we verify our facts. This my wife and 
I have tried to do, and I think that, so far as concerns telepathy at 
least, we can claim success. We present here a mass of real evidence, 
and we shall not be troubled by any amount of ridicule from the 
ignorant. I tell you and because it is so important, I put it in 
capital letters: TELEPATHY HAPPENS! 


The following was originally published as Part 1 
of Bulletin XVI of the Boston Society for Psychic 
Research in April, 1932. The figure numbers 
listed herein refer to the illustrations in Mental 
Radio, with the exception of Figures 147, 148, and 
149 which appeared in the Bulletin only. 

The author of the report was Dr. Walter Franklin 
Prince, Research Officer of the society. He was a 
doctor of divinity of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church and had been pastor of several churches. 
Later he retired and took up the work of the soci- 
ety. He died two years after this report appeared. 



Jbout eighteen months ago I first opened a new book by the 
novelist Upton Sinclair, entitled Mental Radio, then newly issued. 
In 239 pages it outlined the story of the discovery and development 
of what purported to be a supernormal faculty possessed by his wife, 
and rehearsed a large number of experiments in which she seemed 
to have achieved a large and convincing percentage of successes as 
a telepathic "percipient," the "agent" generally being Mr. Sinclair, 
but sometimes her brother-in-law or another person. I confess to 
misgivings as I began to read, first for the very reason that the writer 
is a novelist (unmindful of Wells and certain other writers of fiction 
who, nevertheless, have shown themselves capable of serious and 
even scientific thinking), 1 and secondly because I had suspected, 
rightly or wrongly, that once or twice in the past he had failed to 
discover the devices of certain clever professionals. To be sure, his 
wife was not a professional, and all the conditions could be under 
his own hand, but sometimes through sheer confidence people are 
deceived by their own relatives. 

lOliver Wendell Holmes was a poet and novelist, but as the Encyclopedia Britan- 
nica says: "In 1843 he published his essay on the Contagiousness of Puerperal Fever, 
which stirred up a fierce controversy and brought upon him bitter personal abuse, but 
he maintained his position with dignity, temper and judgment, and in time was hon- 
ored as the discoverer of a beneficent truth." It was about the same time that Semmel- 
weiss was making similar observations, but he did not take preventive measures until 
1847, and Lister came still later. 

S. Weir Mitchell was one of the most prominent novelists of America at the close 
of the 1 9th century, but he was also conspicuous as a neurologist and member of many 
scientific societies. 

The mentality of a man cannot be determined by his profession or by his prevail- 
ing occupation. Mendel, who influenced biology hardly less than did Darwin, was a 
monk and an abbot. Copernicus, who revolutionized solar astronomy, was canon of a 
cathedral, and astronomy was only his avocation. 

A thing is as it acts. An automobile is a good automobile if it behaves as an 
automobile should. We shall see how Mr. Sinclair carried on his experiments and how 
he reported them. At times he pursued a defective method, but he was aware of the 
fact and reports it, while certain technically scientific investigators of telepathy and 
other matters have not seemed even to be aware of their mistakes. 



This, to be frank, was my Initial attitude one of cautious 
interrogation and alertness to find signs of credulity, failure to 
appreciate the possibilities of chance, or lack of data by which the 
calculus of chance coincidence could be determined. But as I read 
on and studied the reproductions of drawings it became more and 
more evident that something besides chance had operated, that the 
conditions of many of the experiments had been excellently de- 
vised, and that where the conditions were relaxed Mr. Sinclair had 
been quite aware of the fact and was candid enough to admit it. 
He stated that such relaxation did not increase the percentage of 
success, and it certainly so appeared from the examples given. He 
reported the total number of experiments, and estimated the per- 
centages of successes, partial successes, and failures. In 290 experi- 
ments, he made these percentages: successes, approximately 23 per 
cent; partial successes, 53 per cent; failures, 24 per cent. He admit- 
ted that judges probably would not agree upon exactly the same 
ratios. In fact I personally think that certain examples which he 
did not publish are better than a few which he did, but have not 
yet found reason to quarrel with his general estimates. 

After considerable study of the book, becoming interested 
beyond any expectation, I wrote to Mr. Sinclair, stating that I had 
become favorably impressed, and making the somewhat audacious 
proposal that he should send me all the original materials for a 
fresh study by the individual standards and through the particular 
methods of a professional investigator. One can think of several 
reasons which might make the most honest and confident man 
hesitant to assent to such a proposal, coming from one whom he 
had never seen, and who might for all he knew have a set of preju- 
dices which after all would cause him to make a lawyer's argument 
against the case. I was really surprised that the bundle of materials 
was sent as quickly as it could be gotten together. 2 

Among the objects in mind were: (1) To study the materials 
in their strict chronological order, day by day. The mode of pres- 
entation in Mental Radio was to give some of the most striking 

2From earlier correspondence and other sources, Mr. Sinclair was quite aware that 
the man to whom he was sending the materials is hard-boiled enough to reject them 
and drop the whole case or report on it adversely if the results of examination were 


results first, then many more that were more or less classified 
according to subjects and aspects. This is effective for popular 
reading but not satisfactory to the serious student. (2) To see if 
there were signs, in any part of the results, of profiting from normal 
knowledge, whether consciously or subconsciously acquired, of 
what the "agent" had drawn. Mr. Sinclair took this theory into 
account and quite decidedly killed it, but it was my duty to try it 
out anew by my own processes, with the same rigor shown in rela- 
tion to my own wife and my daughter in The Psychic in the House. 
Later, in summary fashion, these tests will be set forth. (3) To try 
out other theories to account for the ratios and degrees of corres- 
pondence between "original drawings*' and "reproductions" in 
the Sinclair experiments, such as involuntary whispering and 
chance coincidence. (4) To make a large number of guessing tests 
on the basis of the Sinclair originals, both as a means of deciding 
whether the "mere coincidence" theory is tenable (as aforesaid) 
and, if it should prove otherwise, in order to make a rough 
measurement of the disparity between telepathic results and those 
of guessing. (5) In the event that there appeared to be no reason- 
able escape from conclusion that telepathy is displayed by the 
material, to ascertain (a) whether the telepathic faculty with Mrs. 
Sinclair was constant, vacillating, progressively constant, or what; 
(b) whether the telepathic impressions came to her in the form of 
ideas, images, names or in more than one fashion; (c) whether any 
further hints as to the mental processes involved could be discerned 
or any particular pieces of information isolated which might be 
helpful in this field of study. (6) Finally, to urge readers to insti- 
tute experiments of their own, and to give amateurs some direc- 
tions as to procedure. If many could be persuaded to start "games" 
of this character with their friends, doubtless favorable subjects 
could be discovered or developed. Attention being called to these 
persons, series of tests could be made with them under conditions 
against which none of the old objections could be offered. 8 

The Sinclair experiments are treated first in this Bulletin, 

sin some cases it might be necessary to increase rigidity of the conditions gradu- 
ally, as friendly confidence and ease of the percipient became better established. It is 
futile to ignore the feet that nervous excitement and mental unrest are unfavorable 
to success. 


since they are its chief subject. The drier Historical Notes, pre- 
senting a sketch of the first steps in methodical research relating 
to alleged Thought-Transference, with summaries of some of the 
classic series of tests, particularly such as are based upon drawings, 
are relegated to Part Two. The more earnest and methodical stu- 
dents of such matters will prefer to read that first. 

Mr, Upton Sinclair, about fifty-two years old when his book 
Mental Radio was issued, is, as everyone is supposed to know, one 
of the leading novelists of the United States. His stories are all, 
or nearly all, characterized by an intense purpose. To those who 
claim that art should be exercised only for art's sake this may be 
obnoxious. But from the point of view of this examination of his 
book purporting to prove telepathy, the fact that his novels also 
attempt to prove something, on the basis of studies made by him, 
is quite in his favor. 4 Whether he has in fact proved the thesis of 
his respective tales is not within our province to determine; we do 
propose rigidly to analyze and review his claims to have proved 

Mr. Sinclair is a Socialist, and a very active and prominent 
one; he has been Socialist candidate for Congress in New Jersey 
and later in California, besides having been Socialist candidate 
for the United States Senate and for Governor in the latter-named 
State. Political prejudices or predilections should be strictly 
excluded from the minds of readers of the book or this review of it, 5 
It is another gratifying indication that Mr. Sinclair was not 
deterred from publishing Mental Radio by the solicitations or 
irony of influential friends in his political group, for the scientific 
spirit is in part compounded of courage, honesty and candor. 

Mrs. Sinclair, nee Mary Craig Kimbrough, somewhere about 
forty-five years old when the experiments afterwards published 
took place, is the daughter of a retired judge, bank president, and 
planter of Mississippi. 

The reader may judge of the quality of her mentality by 
reading Appendix I. That is, in part, the reason that it is printed. 
It is a piece of writing by Mrs* Sinclair shortened according to 

*For example, in 1906 Mr. Sinclair assisted the Government in the investigation 
of the Chicago stockyards. 

5[Historical reference deleted.] 


permission given. Almost immediately after my suggestion that the 
experimental materials should be sent for examination, they were 
bundled up and sent, together with some stray scraps, among which 
was this unfinished piece of manuscript which, as it proved, the 
Sinclairs did not know had been included. In spots the composi- 
tion may be a bit diffuse and repetitious, but the woman really 
thinks and reasons, which is more than many do. 

There is in it a sincerity, earnestness and intensity of desire 
to know, which can hardly be counterfeited. Its writer fairly rivals 
Descartes in her determination to find some salient and secure 
spot from which to start in her quest. But in a manner she goes 
back farther than Descartes, at least she splits his ultimate in two. 
She is satisfied with "I am," not because "I think/' but because 
"I am conscious of thinking"; but she does not so readily grant 
the "I think." She wants to know, "Am I doing all the thinking 
I am conscious of?" 

In fact, the document is so intense in its eagerness to penetrate 
the secret of personality in relation to its cosmic environment that 
it is almost febrile. At least in its first pages there is something 
pathological. To paint life with such dark colors and to dwell 
so upon its "discouragements" is not an indication of perfect 

And yet it is certain that the writer is not self-absorbed. The 
painful reactions of the kind which she has experienced, the tor- 
ture produced in her by the existence of so much in life that seems 
unmeaning and disappointing, she supposes to be quite general 
with her fellow-men and so feels a great pity for them. Whereas, 
in my belief, while more are complaining than are happy or con- 
tented, it is common to fret because of income taxes, and inability 
to wear such fine clothes as those of Mrs. Jones, and cold weather 
and squalling cats, and such sordid matters, but uncommon to be 
agonized by the desire to fathom the mysteries of the human spirit. 

The main points of what Mr. Sinclair tells us of the charac- 
teristics of his wife are to be discerned in this revealing manuscript. 
He says "She has nothing of the qualities of naivete and credulity. 
She was raised in a family of lawyers and was given the traning 
and sceptical point o view of a woman of the world. 'Trust people, 
but watch them/ was old Judge Kimbrough's maxim, and follow- 


ing it too closely has almost made a pessimist of his daughter. In 
the course of the last five or six years Craig has acquired a fair- 
sized library of books on the mind, both orthodox, scientific, and 
'crank/ She has sat up half the night studying, marking passages 
and making notes, seeking to reconcile various doctrines, to know 
what the mind is, and how it works, and what can be done with 
it." This began with a breakdown of health when she was about 
forty years old. "A story of suffering needless to go into; suffice 
it that she had many ills to experiment upon, and mental control 
became suddenly a matter of life and death/' This breakdown, it 
is said, resulted directly from "her custom of carrying the troubles 
of all who were near her/' She is intensely sympathetic, we are told. 
'The griefs of other people overwhelm Craig like a suffocation/' 6 

$If there are those who think there is no value in knowing something of the 
make-up of the chief witnesses in this case, I emphatically do not agree with them. 
That such knowledge is not absolutely determinative is, of course, true. 

We are investigating a field of phenomena by all the methods which are practi- 
cable. The larger part of the phenomena are sporadic and spontaneous, and can 
hardly be expected to occur in a laboratory. There are many cases where a man has 
experienced but one apparition in his lifetime, and that at or close to the time when 
the person imaged died. Will any director of a laboratory consent to keep people 
under surveillance for a lifetime, to test if such an experience will take place in a 
laboratory, and can any persons be found who will consent so to spend a lifetime? 
And if under such conditions an apparition should be experienced and it should prove 
beyond doubt that the person imaged died at that moment, even though the appari- 
tional experience occurred in a laboratory, in no sense would or could laboratory tests 
be applied to it. The authentication of the incident would be the testimonies of the 
scientific gentlemen present, to the effect that the story of the apparition was related 
to them and written down before the death of the person was known, with, perhaps, 
details of how the person who experienced the apparition looked and acted at the 
time. But the testimonies of witnesses outside of the laboratory are evidence of pre- 
cisely as much weight, provided that their mentality and reputation for veracity are 

With favorable subjects experiments for telepathy can sometimes be and some- 
times have been carried on with all the rigidity of method and the scrupulosity of a 
laboratory, or, if there remain doubts and objections on grounds seemingly almost of 
as "occult" a nature as telepathy itself, doubtless in time to come methods will be 
devised to meet these doubts and objections. But subjects of singularly calm and 
poised nature will be required. It seems to be a fact with which we have to deal, how- 
ever regrettable, that with most persons who under friendly and unstrained conditions 
at times strongly evidence telepathic powers, suddenly to place them in a room con- 
taining strange apparatus, and before a committee of strangers, some perhaps cold 
and stern in appearance, others whose amiable demeanor nevertheless betrays an 
amused scepticism, is to make it improbable that they can exhibit telepathy at all. It 


will have to be recognized as a scientific datum that a state of mental tranquillity and 
passivity is generally requisite for such manifestations. Nor is this peculiar to psycM- 
cal manifestations; the principle applies more or less to a variety of psychological 
manifestations and powers. Mark Twain could reel off witty utterances when he was 
mentally at ease, but had he been surrounded by a solemn-visaged group of psycholo- 
gists with his wrists harnessed to a sphygmometer, and placed in face of an apparatus 
for recording graphs and a stenographer with poised pencil, it is very certain that his 
reactions would not have been those of brilliant and original humor. So I have seen 
a prominent violinist, invited to play at a reception, try to keep on amidst the waxing 
murmur of conversation, and finally falter and almost break down. 

In this laboratory-fixation age it is well to remember that certain even of the 
physical sciences quite or mostly elude laboratory experimentation. Take astronomy, 
a great and promising but difficult and problematical field of research. No sun of aE 
the millions, no planet, no planetary satellite, no comet, no tiniest of the asteroids can 
be brought into a laboratory. Once in a while a meteroic stone reaches the earth, and 
this can be analyzed, but no laboratory can control or predict time or place of its fall- 
ing. It is necessary to devise agencies, telescopes, spectroscopes and so on, which, in a 
sense, go out and bring back data about the subjects of this science, and to develop 
methods of mathematical deduction by which to reach conclusions which are accepted 
by most people on authority only, since to most people the mathematics is quite 

Astronomy, perhaps entitled to be called the most ancient of sciences, is one of the 
most difficult. A multitude of theories to account for its multitudinous phenomena 
have been supplanted by others; within the memory of persons now living many opin- 
ions once firmly held have been discarded or at least called in question. This is not 
in the least to the discredit of the science, but it is a fact. Today there are many con- 
tradictions of opinion among astronomers. While an article by a scientific man was 
printing in the Scientific American expressing the common view that in a little while, 
about a million million years, the earth will become too cold for anybody to live on it, 
another scientist was announcing to the world his reasons for questioning that con- 
clusion. Even facts of a declared visual character are called in question. Professor 
Percival Lowell to his death in 1916 supported Schiaparellfs announced discovery of 
canals on Mars, described them as he saw them through the telescope, and declared 
that they must be of artificial origin* It is said that there are astronomers who can 
see the canals but who question that they are artificial. And it is certain that there 
are astronomers who deny that there are any canals at all, and who claim that what 
seem to be canals to some are optical illusions or sheer hallucinations. (Is not astron- 
omy getting to look like psychic research?) 

But in spite of all its shifting and reconstruction of theories, its assertions and 
counter-assertions, the complexity and enormous difficulty of its numerous problems, 
and the exceedingly subtle methods by which, in a great measure, these problems must 
be studied, no one is so foolish as to think that astronomical investigation should not 
be pursued, or that there does not lie before it a great field for the pursuit of truth. 

To a very large extent psychic research is analogous with astronomy. It, the 
youngest of the sciences (by few as yet acknowledged to be a science), has a very diffi- 
cult field, lying as far apart from the ordinary life of most men as the multitudinous 
realities of infinite space lie outside the range of thought of ordinary men; its prob- 
lems are many, theories are shif ting and contradictory, certain facts are both affirmed 
and denied, and, what is more to the point for our present purpose, only to a limited 


The book relates several spontaneous experiences of Mrs. 
Sinclair when she was young and which, taken together, strongly 
indicate telepathy. Her husband rightly remarks that it is the 
number of. such incidents which is impressive; one or two might 
well be coincidence. Still the coincidence of being suddenly 
impressed that Mr. B, whose home was three hundred miles away, 
was at her home where he had never been, and turning back from 
a drive and finding him there, even taken by itself, Is a very strik- 
ing one. Mr. Sinclair himself is witness to the fact that she sud- 
denly, for no known reason became very much worried about 
Jack London, insisting that he was in mental distress, whereas it 
proved that London committed suicide at about that time. 

Such incidents indicate that her experimental successes were 
not solely the result of the method which she explains at length, 
but that she had an inborn gift from early childhood. Her interest 
in that gift seems to have been much stimulated by her acquain- 
tance with "Jan," the "young hypnotist" of Appendix I, whose 
advent is probably not in that narrative placed in chronological 
order. She became convinced that he showed evidence of telepathy, 
and tried in turn to ascertain what he was thinking or what he 
was doing when absent, and became convinced that many times 
she had been successful. Also, "Craig has been able to establish 
exactly the same rapport with her husband," who relates instances. 
These were "written down at the time." So few even intelligent 
people do make immediate record of such things that we would 
have suspected, even if he had not Informed us on another page, 

extent can its problems be taken into the laboratory, but for the most part techniques 
and logical methods have to be devised to fit the nature of the facts with which we 
deal. In astronomy, most of the subjects of study can be found in place at any time; 
the great drawback is that they are so fearfully distant as to be sensed very slightly. 
On the other hand, with certain exceptions, either of kind or degree, the subjects of 
psychical study cannot be found in place whenever wanted but appear occasionally, 
yet when they do appear often do so with a nearness and clearness which spares the 
witnesses the necessity of those cautious qualifying phrases so common in articles 
dealing with astronomy. 

In order at length to turn the attention of scientific men to a quarter of reality to 
which most of them are now voluntarily blind, we must continue to do what some 
people contemn as "old stuff," and that is to multiply the number of intelligent and 
reputable witnesses by teaching people how to observe and how to record, and by rid- 
ding them of the cowardice which now keeps at least five out of six potential witnesses 
of such standing silent. 


that he has made a considerable study of the literature of psychic 

One of these incidents we shall particularly notice here, and 
that because Mr. Sinclair himself has either not noticed all of its 
evidential value, or has not fully called attention to it. * * * 
[Refer to Figs. 14a and 14b and experiment.] 

Probably Mr. Sinclair thought it would be sufficiently obvious 
to the reader that the first drawing is as similar in shape to a clover 
blossom as a person having no gift for drawing would be likely 
to make it, in addition to the correspondence of color. But it 
should also be remarked that the second drawing is like the flower- 
head of the American aloe, as one may see by comparing it with 
the cut shown in the article entitled "Agave/' in the Encyclopedia 
Britannica. The article provokingly fails to tell us what are the 
colors of the flower, but the cut shows that it is at least much 
lighter above than below. 

Another incident is remarkable for its apparent revelation of 
subconscious mechanisms. Seemingly here Mrs. Sinclair not only 
got an impression of what her husband had drawn, but it was 
modified by something he was then reading, and that by the aid 
of memories from childhood. His drawing represented a football, 
"neatly laced up" (Fig. 15). Hers (Fig. 15a) shows a band of exactly 
the same shape on a figure not so very far from that of a football, 
but with an extension suggesting the head of an animal, and a line 
suggesting a leg. And she wrote "Belly-band on calf/* * * *! 

"Wishing to solve the mystery!" But why should the lady have 
felt that there was any mystery in her drawing and script, any more 
than in the generality of her results? But she evidently did, or she 
would not have asked the question. It is one of the most interesting 
features of this experiment that she seemed to feel that something 
else than the original drawing or her husband's thoughts about it 
was influencing her impression, and suspected that this something 
was his contemporaneous reading. 

Sometimes the apparent telepathy was exercised in a dream, 
especially during its latter stage, while the lady was gradually 
emerging into full consciousness. 7 

fit is so judged from such expressions as "Or maybe she has been asleep and comes 
out with the tail end of a dream, and has written down what appears to be a lot of 


The Sinclair Jrwin Long-distance Group of Experiments 

On July 8, 1928, the first formal set of experiments with draw- 
ings began, by arrangement between Mrs. Sinclair and the husband 
of her younger sister; Robert L. Irwin, "a young American busi- 
ness man, priding himself on having no 'crank' ideas." The 
arrangement was that at a stated hour Mr. Irwin should seat himself 
in his home in Pasadena, make a drawing, and then fix his mind 
upon the drawing from fifteen to twenty minutes. At the same 
hour in her home at Long Beach, twenty-five or thirty miles distant 
as the crow flies, Mrs. Sinclair proposed to lie on a couch, in semi- 
darkness and with closed eyes, compose her mind according to the 
rules she had by this time evolved, and after coming to a decision, 
make a drawing corresponding with her mental impression. It 
appears that there was one such experiment on July 8, two on the 
9th, two on the 10th and one each on the llth and 13th. 

We have here, then, a set of seven experiments under ideal 
conditions. Since something like thirty miles separated the parties, 
there could be no contact, no "involuntary whispering" that would 
carry that far and no conceivable other source of information or 
material for surmise. 

1 . On July 8, Irwin drew a chair with horizontal bars at the 
back (Fig. 16). Mrs. Sinclair drew first a chair with horizontal bars 
(Fig. 16a), then a chair with vertical ones. And she distinctly set 
down on the same paper her sense of greater satisfaction with her 
first drawing, her feeling that the second was not as "Bob" had 
drawn it, and her feeling that the second may really express the foot 
of his bed. She also set down that his drawing was on "green paper." 
.Here is a remarkable combination of impressions: (a) his drawing 
on green paper, (b) seen as a chair "on his paper," (c) his chair with 
horizontal bars, (d) her chair with vertical bars perhaps derived 
from (e his bedfoot" Even had there been, as there was not, a pre- 
understanding that some object familiar in daily life was to be 
drawn, to hit exactly the same one would be very unlikely. To do 
this and also to get the unusual color of the paper he drew on is 

rubbish but turns out to be a reproduction of something her husband has been read- 
ing or writing at that very moment"; "Says my wife, 'There are some notes of a dream 
I just had/ " 


remarkable. To get all the enumerated particulars exactly correct 
Is incalculably beyond chance expectation. For he drew a chair, 
on green paper, with horizontal bars, then gazed at the chair 
through the vertical bars of his bed! * * * [Refer to Figs. 16 and 
16a and experiment.] 

She added that she sees a star and straight lines, and draws 
the star and the lines, horizontal like those of the chair. 

There are several partial correspondences besides those we 
have enumerated. Bob did sit at the northeast corner of the dining- 
room table. He faced a sideboard (but apparently did not take 
anything out of it) where were silver (not glass) candlesticks; there 
is a star on the back of the chair; whether any white object was 
in front of him as he sat at the table, before lying down on the 
bed, is not reported. But it is to be presumed that Mrs. Sinclair 
was familiar with his room and furniture, and these particulars 
add comparatively little. Once she got the chair, subconscious 
memory might supply the star; but it would not give any clue 
to the green paper or to his looking through vertical bars. 

2. On July 9, at the stated hour, Bob drew a watch (Fig. 17). 8 
First Mrs. Sinclair drew a chair, but cancelled it with the words 
then written down, "but do not feel it is correct." Then she drew 
Figure 17a. * * * 

This is not a success, but the flower which is not a flower, the 
petals, which are not petals and should be more uniform, the 
"metal," the "wire" (adumbration of the hands?), the "glass circle," 
the bridging across the extremities of the "petals" as if from an 
urge toward making a circle, the black center corresponding with 
the center post of a watch, taken together are very suggestive. 
Other impressions resulted in the addition of an ellipse, a drinking- 
glass and a glass pitcher, and Bob did have in front of him a glass 
bowl of goldfish, which may have furnished a telepathic hint, but 
this is doubtfully evidential. 

3. Another experiment was scheduled for the same day. Bob 
made an elaborate drawing of a telephone receiver, transmitter, 
dial, cord and alL The top part, the transmitter, as drawn, is 

The words "Bob drew watch/* etc., were added by Mrs. Sinclair after she had 
read his statement. 


strikingly like a round, black, glass ink-bottle, seen with mouth 
facing the spectator. Mrs. Sinclair made four drawings. The first 
looks like such an ink-bottle seen from the side, and she writes, 
"Ink bottle?" The second drawing shows a twisted line attached 
to a triangle, reminding one of the twisted telephone cord attached 
to a sharp angle of the base, and the third repeats the twisting line. 
The fourth inverted is considerably like the base of the telephone. 
The correspondences are very suggestive. 

4- On the 10th, Bob drew, on the back of the paper having 
the telephone drawing (he should not have done this), which he 
of course saw anew, what is probably intended to represent a 
square frame containing a picture, both very black. The percipient 
first drew two lines forming an angle and placed in relation to it 
about as the dial of the telephone is placed in relation to the angle 
of the telephone base, a black disc. Her next and last drawing was 
a circle containing about a dozen round spots, as the circular dial 
of the telephone contains eight spots. 

5. On the 10th, also, Bob drew a pair of scissors (Fig. 18), and 
the percipient made two attempts which, taken together, certainly 
do sense its parts (Figs. 18a and 18b). 

6. On the llth, Bob, whose health had been in bad shape for 
several years, made a circle with a compass, of course producing 
a hole in the center of it. And this is what Mrs. Sinclair got (Fig. 
19a). There is a circle in fact, a number of them concentrically 
arranged and there is a central dot corresponding to the mark 
made by the compass leg. But other impressions came to Mrs. Sin- 
clair, accompanied by poignant emotions, and she seemed to see 
and tried to draw a spreading stain of blood. She wrote her feeling 
and her conviction: "All this dark like a stain, feel it is blood; 
that Bob is ill, more than usual." She did not draw, but directly 
told her husband, "I wanted to draw a little hill." And why all 
this? It transpired that while Bob was making the circle he was in 
a state of distress, for, he afterwards testified, "I discovered that 
I had a hemorrhoid, and couldn't put my mind on anything but 
the thought, 'My God, my lungs my kidneys and now this!' " It 
is hardly necessary, perhaps, to point out that a hemorrhoid is like 


a little hill and that one is very likely to bring on hemorrhage, 9 so 
that this possibility was probably in Bob's mind. 

Had Mrs. Sinclair been in a laboratory with one professor 
of psychology or of physics, and her brother-in-law in another 
laboratory with another, not all the apparatus of both laboratories 
nor all the ingenuity of both professors could have made the con- 
ditions more rigid, or tested the essence of the matter farther. 
There would simply have been the testimony of four persons, two 
at each end, and that is exactly what there is. Bob's affliction was 
of sudden occurrence, and the particular terms of Mrs. Sinclair's 
impressions could not have been produced by any hint of knowl- 
edge. His willingness in the interest of psychic research, in order 
that this remarkable demonstration of telepathy should not be lost, 
to put aside squeamishness, is a rebuke to the human violets who 
shrink, for no intelligible reason from allowing evidence to be used 
which relates to them. 

7, On the 13th, Bob drew a table fork (Fig. 1), and Mrs. Sin- 
clair, at the same hour, many miles away, drew nothing but wrote, 
"See a table fork. Nothing else." (Fig. la.) 

These seven experiments 10 are all that were undertaken 
between Mrs. Sinclair and her brother-in-law. This is unfortunate, 
for it certainly appears from this short but remarkable series as 
though they were remarkably suited to each other, for reasons we 
cannot yet fathom, for long-distance experiments. But "he found 
them a strain/' and since his health was so poor and strains were 
most undesirable, we cannot blame him for discontinuing them. 

One pauses to consider the words "he found them a strain.*' 
May it be that when experiments reveal thought-transference the 
agent generally does feel a strain beyond that involved in merely 
gazing at an object and wishing (or willing, or what you please) 
that the percipient may get the idea of it. If so, it would seem to 
imply, not necessarily some energy proceeding outwardly, but at 
any rate some process going on within which causes the special 
exhaustion. But no statistics bearing on this question have been 

0"UIceration and bleeding are also common symptoms, hence the term 'bleeding 
piles.' " Encyclopedia Britannica. 


gathered from successful agents. It is one of the many sorts of data 
which must be accumulated in the future. 

Mr. Irwin and his wife made corroborating affidavits, as 

To whom it may concern: 

Robert L, Irwin, having been duly sworn, declares that he 
has read the portion of manuscript by Upton Sinclair dealing 
with his experiments in telepathy with Mary Craig Sinclair, and 
that the statements made therein having to do with himself are 
true according to his clear recollection. The drawings attributed 
to him were produced by him in the manner described, and are 
recognized by him in their photographic reproductions. The 
experiments were conducted in good faith, and the results may be 
accepted as valid. 

[Signed] ROBERT L. IRWIN. 

To whom it may concern: 

Dollie Kimbrough Irwin, having been duly sworn, declares 
that she has read the portion of manuscript by Upton Sinclair 
dealing with experiments in telepathy by her sister, Mary Craig 
Sinclair, and having to do with her husband, Robert L. Irwin; 
that she was present when the drawings were made and the tests 
conducted, and also when the completed drawings were produced 
and compared. The statements made in the manuscript are true 
according to her clear recollection, and the experiments were 
made in good faith and with manifest seriousness. 


These statements were severally. 

"Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of July, 
1929, [Signed] LAURA UNANGST, Notary Public in and for the 
County of Denver, Colorado." 

The Sinclair-Sinclair Group of July 14-29, 1928 

We are in two passages told precisely the conditions of this 
group of experiments. Since her brother-in-law felt obliged to 
withdraw from participation, Mrs. Sinclair asked her husband to 
make some drawings. * * * 

L July 14. Mr. Sinclair made the above drawing (Fig. 2), a 
very imperfectly constructed six-pointed star. Mrs. Sinclair, reclin- 


ing 30 feet away, with a closed door between, produced five draw- 
ings (Fig. 2a). 11 Immediately after the agent's and percipient's 
drawings had been compared, the lady stated that just before start- 
ing to concentrate she had been looking at her drawing of many 
concentric circles made on the previous day in the concluding test 
of the SInclair-Irwin group. This was bad method, but we can 
hardly regret it, as the sequel is illuminating. At first she got a 
tangle of circles: "This turned sideways [thus assuming the shape 
of one of the star-points], then took the shape of an arrow-head 
[confused notion of the stair-point, one would conjecture], and 
then of a letter A [another attempt to interpret the dawning im- 
pression], and finally evolved into a complete star/* The star so 
nearly reproduces the oddities of the original star, its peculiar 
shape and the direction which its greatest length takes, that had it 
been produced In one of the unguarded series, one would have 
been tempted to think that the percipient "peeked." But the origi- 
nal was actually made, as well as gazed at, behind a closed door, 
so that there is no possible basis for imagining any such accident 
or any inadvertence on the part of either experimenter. 

2. July 14. In his room Mr. Sinclair drew the grinning face 
of Figure 21, and then Mrs. Sinclair drew in hers Figure 2 la. Two 
eyes in his, one "eye" in hers. Look at the agent's drawing upside 
down (how can we or he be sure that he did not momentarily 
chance to look at it reversed and retain the impression?), and note 
the parallels. At the top of his two eyes at the top of hers one 
"eye"; midway in his two small angles indicating the nose some- 
what above midway in hers, three similarly small angles unclosed 
at the apexes; at the bottom of his a crescent-shaped figure to indi- 
cate a mouth, with lines to denote teeth at the bottom of hers a 
like crescent, minus any interior lines. Had the percipient drawn 
what would be instantly recognizable as a face, though a face of 
very different lines, it would be pronounced a success. But such 

ll"I explain that in these particular drawings the lines have been traced over in 
heavier pencil; the reason being that Craig wanted a carbon copy, and went over the 
lines in order to make it. This had the effect of making them heavier than they orig- 
inally were, and it made the whirly lines in Craig's first drawing more numerous than 
they should be. She did this in the case of two or three of the early drawings, wishing 
to send a report to a friend. I pointed out to her how this would weaken their value 
as evidence, so she never did it again." 


a fact would be very much more likely as a guess than a misin- 
terpreted, almost identical crescent (she thought it probably a 
"moon"), so similar little marks, angularly related (she "supposed 
it must be a star"), and an "eye," all placed as in the original. 

3. July 17. Mr. Sinclair, lying on a couch in one room, drew 
and then gazed at a drawing which can easily be described; it is a 
broad ellipse with its major axis horizontal, like an egg lying on its 
side, and a smaller and similar one in contact over it. Mrs. Sin- 
clair, lying on a couch in another room, first drew a broad ellipse 
(not quite closed at one end), with major axis horizontal, and 
beside it and not quite touching, a somewhat smaller circle not 
quite closed at one end. Then she got an impression represented 
in a second drawing, four ellipses of equal size, two of them in 
contact with each other. 

4. July 20. Under the same conditions Mr. Sinclair drew two 
heavy lines like a capital T. Mrs. Sinclair drew what is like an 
interrogation point with misplaced dot, then a reversed S with two 
dots enclosed, then an upright cross composed of lines of equal 
length, and finally such a cross circumscribed by a tangential 
square. Though, as Mr. Sinclair remarks, the cross is the T of the 
original with its vertical line prolonged, I should call this experi- 
ment barely suggestive. 

5. July 20. Under the same conditions Mr. Sinclair drew a 
long-handled fork with three short tines. Mrs. Sinclair, to use the 
language of her own record, "kept seeing horns," and she attempted 
to draw them. She also "thought once it was an animal's head with 
horns, and the head was on a long stick a trophy mounted like 
this. ..." But her drawing was like a long-handled fork with two 
short tines combining to make a curve very close to that of the two 
outer tines of the original. 

6. July 20. Under the same conditions Mr. Sinclair drew a 
cup with a handle. Mrs. Sinclair twice drew a figure resembling 
the handle of the original, then the same with an enclosed dot, then 
lines parallel and at an angle. She felt confused and dissatisfied. 
It is possible that her first impression was derived from the cup, 
but we can hardly urge this evidentially. 

7. July 21. Under the same conditions Mr. Sinclair drew a 
man's face in profile (Fig. 20). Mrs. Sinclair wrote: "Saw Upton's 


face saw two half-circles. Then they came together, making full 
circle. But I felt uncertain as to whether they belonged together 
or not. Then suddenly saw Upton's profile float across vision/' 
Well, Mr. Sinclair is a man, hence his face is a man's face, and it 
was seen in profile like the original drawing. 

Thus far there is no gap in the record of this group. There 
were experiments on July 27 and 29, but apparently two or more 
papers are missing. It is certain that on the 29th, under the same 
conditions, Mr. Sinclair drew a smoking cigarette and wrote 
beneath it, "My thought, 'cigarette with curls for smoke/ " and 
that Mrs. Sinclair drew a variety of curving lines and wrote, "I 
can't draw it, but curls of some sort." So it appears that on this 
date there was a suggestive result, but as there is doubt whether 
one or two other experiments may not have been tried, the papers 
of which were not all preserved, we had better regard the group 
as closed with No. 7. 

So far as concerns the question solely whether Mrs. Sinclair 
has shown telepathic powers, I would be willing to rest the case 
right here, after but fourteen experiments under the conditions 
which have been stated. 12 Every intelligent reader who really 
applies his mind to them must see the extreme unlikelihood that 
the results of those fourteen experiments, taking them as they 
stand, successes, partial successes, suggestive and failures, are the 
products of chance. And any one who has had hundreds of experi- 
ments in guessing, as I have done, will know that there is no likeli- 
hood of getting out of many thousands of guesses anything like the 
number and grades of excellence in correspondence found in these 
fourteen consecutive tests for telepathy. 

We cannot take space to comment on all the tests made, the 
papers of which were sent us, and we here pass over three on as 
many dates, one a success though not a perfect one, two failures. 

The Series of January 28, 1929 

Mr, Sinclair asked his secretary "to make simple geometrical 
designs, letters and figures, thinking that these would be easier 

l2Of course, there would be theoretical possibility that the four persons involved 
joined in a conspiracy to deceive, and there would be the same theoretical possibility 
if four psychologists from the sanctum sanctorum of a laboratory announced similar 


to recognize and reproduce.** It seems a little strange that when 
things were going on so well, he should have wanted a change, 
though any experiment is interesting. It is by no means certain, 
and I very much doubt from these and earlier printed experiments, 
that the assumption is a correct one. It may well be that geo- 
metrical diagrams, letters of the alphabet and such like fail to 
interest the agent and afford him a lively mental representation, 
as do pictures of miscellaneous objects. And if 1 understand rightly, 
another change of method was also initiated, and that was for Mrs. 
Sinclair to try to get the drawings not while the maker of them 
was gazing intently at them, but after they had left his hands. This 
certainly was often the case later on. 

I wrote and asked Mr. Sinclair if Mrs. Sinclair was told the 
fact that this and several other series of original drawings consisted 
of geometrical drawings, letters and figures, and he said that she 
was not so told, that he would have regarded this as a vitiation of 
the experiments. It would certainly increase the chance of getting 
drawings right by guess, but it would hardly have ruined the experi- 
ments. In fact, some people think that the most scientific experi- 
ments are those in which the range of chance guess is limited to an 
extent known to the percipient, as when the problem is to deter- 
mine which of the 52 cards of a pack is being looked at, or which 
of only ten known diagrams. This opinion is probably based on 
the fact that then the ratio of success to chance expectation can be 
exactly calculated, though why it should be more satisfactory to 
know that the chance of a correct guess is exactly 1 in 10 than it is 
not to be able to tell exactly what the chance is but to be sure at 
least that it cannot be 1 in 100, 1 do not know. 

Unless I had carefully recorded at the time that there was no 
chance of the percipient having a hint that the drawings were now 
for a time to consist of geometrical designs, letters and figures, I 
would not dare to be certain of it after several years have passed. 
If Mrs. Sinclair had no inkling, the change in the general character 
of her drawings is a fact of great interest. But we will take cog- 
nizance only of whatever resemblance may or may not be found 
between the several reproductions and their originals. 

The first series of drawings by the secretary were seven in 
number, and, says Mr. Sinclair, "They brought only partial sue- 


cesses; Craig would get elements of the drawing, but would not 
know how to put them together. . . . There Is some element right 
In every one." Let us see. 

1. Agent's drawing, a script B; Percipient's drawing, a figure 
very like a script 3, practically the B without its vertical line. 

2. Agt., a script S; Per., a script J. As made, each has two 
balloon-like parts joined at the small ends, certain details of course 

3. Agt., a hexagon; Per., two lines forming an acute angle, 
like two sides of the hexagon, also a capital E with a line drawn 
down at an acute angle to the left from the upper extremity of the 
vertical line. 

4. Agt., script M made with a peculiar twist in its first line; 
Per., almost precisely that first line with its twist. 

5. Agt., a thin, long, quadrilateral, like a shingle; Per., (1st 
drawing) what would be almost exactly the same quadrilateral, 
narrow and long, but its shorter sides are wanting, and (2nd draw- 
ing) a closely similar quadrilateral, with another and longer one 
attached to its side at a sharp angle. 

6. AgL, an interrogation point; Per., a figure hard to describe, 
a round dot with curves springing from it like concentric 3*s, and 
two parallel lines shooting to the left. The points which attract 
notice are the dot, like that of the original, and the curves similar 
to that of the interrogation point. 

7. Agt, script E; Per,, same minus the "curls/* 

Several of the above are not impressive taken alone; taken 
together, the greater or less approaches to the several originals 
defeat chance, though how much no man can measure. Counter- 
tests by guessing will come the nearest to measuring. 

The Series of January 28-29, 1929 

This series also has to do with drawings made by Mr. Sinclair's 

1. Agent's drawing, a diamond or rhombus (Fig. 32); Per- 
cipient's drawing, the two halves of a rhombus, "wandering about," 
as Mr. Sinclair says (Fig. 32a); if connected they would make a 
rhombus closely similar to the original. 


2. Agt., a script capital Y; Per., a print capital Y. (Figs. 33 
and 33a.) 

3. The Agent's drawing, a bottle of milk with "certified*' 
written on it, was suggested by his knowledge that Mrs. Sinclair 
to a considerable extent lives on milk and is particular about its 
quality; Per., an ellipse much like the top of the bottle, a straight 
line depending therefrom, and the script "Round white foamy 
stuff on top like soapsuds or froth/* And foam is characteristic 
of her milk, as she drinks it sour and whipped (Figs. 34 and 34a). 
Here the percipient failed to get much as to shape, but got con- 
siderable in the way of associated ideas. 

4. Agt., an oil derrick (Fig. 35); Per., got what will be seen 
in Figure 35a. There are long lines diverging like the long lines 
of the oil derrick, but at a slant, and with a 5 or perhaps a 9 at the 
top which has no counterpart in the original. This is not a very 
satisfactory reproduction, but the general shape and long down- 
ward lines are suggestive. 

5. Agt., something like a poplar leaf; Per., three scrawls like 
letters or parts of letters. A failure . 

6. Agt., three small ellipses attached to a stem; Per., script 
"See what looks like spider's web/' but drawing shows a bunch of 
elliptic figures. 

7. Agt., apparently an apple with stem; Per., (I) what looks 
like a tall script V, (2) the same less tall, (3) one so low and broad 
that it is nearly equivalent to the top of the apple minus the stem. 

8. Agt., a house from whose chimney proceeds smoke repre- 
sented by a spiral line (Fig. 36). Per., (1) a double spiral cut by a 
straight line, same slant as in the original, (2) single spiral of nearly 
the same slant, (3) what looks like a battlement, the crenels or 
openings of which are like the windows of the house minus the 
upper sides (Fig. 36a). The rectangular openings are three in 
number, the rectangular openings in the house (two windows and 
a door) are also there. 

9. Agt., an open fan (Fig. 102); Per., a drawing represented 
by Figure 102a, accompanied by the script, "Inside seems irregu- 
lar, as if cloth draped or crumpled/' Two words, "cloth," and 
"draped," suggest what takes place as one begins to shut a fan, 
though the drawing is an incorrect representation. 


10. Agt., the figures 13 (Fig. 103); Per., (1) what would be a 3 
but for a supernumerary curve, (2) a 3 (Fig. 103a). 

11. Agt., a conventional heart (Fig. 105); Per., practically 
the upper part of such a heart, with three spots which may or may 
not represent blood-drops, according to Mr. Sinclair's conjecture 
(Fig. 105a). We can hardly contend, as an evidential point, that 
this is the meaning of the round spots. Some obscure subconscious 
recollection of expressions like "My heart bleeds/' expressing suf- 
fering, may have come out in the drawing, though in that case 
one wonders why the whole heart was not drawn. But it may be 
that the three marks proceeding in the direction of the right side 
of the original came from a feeling that something should line in 
that direction. 

12. Agt., a broom (Fig. 104); Per., several attempts all more 
or less resembling the original (Figs. 104a, 104b), and a valuable 
script: "All I'm sure of is a straight line with something curved 
at the end of it [and this description, all that she was sure of, is so 
far correct]; once it came [here see the drawing at the left] then 
it doubled, or reappeared, I don't know which [referring to the 
upper right drawing] (am not sure of the curly edges) [and she was 
justified in her doubt. Probably the curly edges resulted from 
the intermingling of her surmise that the curved something at the 
end of a line might be a flower]. Then it was upside down." 

Series of February 8, 1929 

Tests with drawings in carefully sealed envelopes. 

1. Agt., a coiled snake (Fig. 45); Per.j no drawing, but this 
script: "See something like kitten with tail and saucer of milk. 
Now it leaps into action and runs away to outdoors. Turns to 
fleeing animal outdoors. Great activity among outdoor creatures. 
Know it's some outdoor thing, not indoor object see trees, and 
a frightened bird on the wing (turned sidewise). It's outdoor thing, 
but none of above seems to be it." 

This is much more interesting than if there had been the 
perfect success of writing the word "snake/* because we seem to get 
inklings of the internal process. "Saucer of milk" observe that the 
serpent's coil plus the unattached ellipse in the center (due to Mr. 
Sinclair's confessed bad drawing) really does look like a saucer. 


"Something like a kitten with a tail" why mention tail? Most kit- 
tens have tails. But a tail sticks up back of the saucer. Later neither 
kitten, trees nor frightened bird is it, yet something is causing great 
commotion among outdoor creatures. It is an outdoor thing, there- 
fore not a kitten, but evidently something alive. The scene is very 
appropriate to the appearance of a snake. Mr. Sinclair tells us that 
his wife's childhood was in part spent where there were many pois- 
onous snakes, and that fear of them was bred in her. As he con- 
jectures, it is very likely that dawning in the subconsciousness, not 
fully emerging in the conscious, the subject of the drawing stirred 
up imagery from childhood. I surmise that, if the truth, which she 
may not consciously remember, could be known, she saw while a 
child a kitten fleeing from a snake. 

2. Agt., a daisy (Fig. 59); Per. got what is very like the petals 
around the disk of the daisy, also two stems, also various curving 
lines more or less like the daisy leaves or vegetation at least (Fig. 

3. Agt. 9 an axe, seemingly a battle-axe, with AX printed (Fig. 
145); Per., as in Figure 145a. Note the parallels: (a) "letter A [right 
as far as it goes], (b) with something long (c) above it"; (d) "there 
seems to be no end to the handle"; (e) the drawing much resembles 
the original, in fact one type of ancient battle-axe was very much 
of the same shape. Although she finally guessed that it was a key, 
yet a suspicion of military use enters in the conjecture "a sword," 
which is perhaps all the more striking since the drawing bears little 
resemblance to a sword. 

4. Agt.; a crab (Fig. 48); Per. drew as in Figures 48a, 48b, and 
wrote "Wings, or fingers wing effect, but no feathers, things like 
fingers, instead of feathers. Then many little dots which all disap- 
pear, and leave two of them, O O, as eyes of something." And again, 
"streamers flying from something." The reader will judge for him- 
self whether the drawings do not suggest the crab's nippers, and one 
of them the joint adjoining. "Wing effect but no feathers, things 
like fingers" especially the lower pair in Mr. Sinclair's remarkable 
crab do look like fingers. "Many dots"; well the original has four. 
Then she sees but two of them and they are "O O, eyes of some- 
thing." True enough, two of the "dots" in the crab are O O, and 
they are eyes. 


5. Agt., a man In a sledge driving a dog-team (Fig. 60). Per. by 
accident opened this drawing, so of course could not experiment 
with it. But after she had made her drawings for No. 2 she wrote 
"Maybe snow scene on hill with a sled." On the back of No. 3, 
which was so brilliant a success, she wrote "I get a feeling again of 
a snow scene to come in this series a sled in the snow." It is un- 
fortunate that an accident prevented her trying No. 5 when she 
had actually reached it, but she certainly got it by anticipation. 

6. Agt., a tobacco pipe with smoke issuing therefrom (Fig. 
37); Per. first drew an ellipse and wrote "Now it begins to spin, 
round and round, and is attached to a stick"; (2) next she made the 
conventional "curl" which usually means smoke; (3) then she made 
another curl of smoke and pushed the open end of an ellipse into 
it, 13 joined a line to the ellipse just about where the stem of a pipe 
meets the bowl and at the end of the line made a small circle, which 
certainly is not found in the original but may express the feeling 
that there is a circular opening (Fig. 37a). 

7. Agt., a house with smoking chimney; Per., two figures, each 
very like the frame of a window lacking the upper side, or like the 
crenels or openings in the battlement of Figure 36a, but longer. In 
connection with that drawing (Experiment of January 28-29) we 
made the remark (which may have seemed fanciful) that the num- 
ber of these openings or uncompleted rectangles was the same as 
that of the windows and door in the original drawing. Here the 
uncompleted 2 rectangles equal in number the one window plus the 
one door of the house. She also wrote "There is something above 
this can't see what it is part of." True, the roof and chimney are 
above the window and door. 

Series of February 10, 1929 

1. Agt., a bat (Fig. 109); Per., as in Fig 109a. The drawing at 
the top is accompanied by the remark "Looks like ear shape some- 
thing." And certainly each of the bat's wings does resemble an 
ear in shape. The middle left drawing gets the idea that there are 
two symmetrical and diverging curves, but fails to complete them; 
space is left between them which in the agent's drawing is occupied 

i3The cut does not show that the end is open like a pipe, but it is plainly so in 
the pencil drawing. 


by the body. The middle right figure again has symmetrical diverg- 
ing curves, with a further approach toward shaping the wings. This 
time they are incorrectly joined at the bottom, but the perpen- 
dicular line between betrays an inkling that something belongs 
there. Imperfect as all these attempts are, they contain hints which 
it is difficult to attribute to chance. The agent, looking at his draw- 
ing, would of necessity have his attention focus first on one part 
of it and then upon another, and the percipient's drawings seem as 
though they caught his several moments of wandering attention. 

2. Agt.; a hand with pointing finger, and thumb held vertically 
(Fig. 108); Per., (I) a drawing not reproduced here of a negro's head 
with a finger-like projection drawn vertically from his skull, (2) 
then script "Turned into a pig's head, (3) then a rabbit's," as in 
Figure 108a. In one sense the percipient's drawings are all failures; 
that is, none of them would be recognized as a hand. But in all 
three a feeling seems to express itself that there is something sticking 
up. This is the more remarkable in Drawing 1, since such an ex* 
crescence does not belong on a head. Drawing 2 gets rid of the face, 
and the thumb of the original becomes a peculiarly thumb-like ear. 

3. For this experiment see the "line-and-circle men" and their 
evidentially suggestive sequel (Figs. 144, 144a). 

4. Agt., a rudely drawn caterpillar (Fig. 118); Per., script: 
"Fork then garden tool-lawn rake. Leaf," and drawing repre- 
senting a leaf which has a certain fantastic resemblance to the 
caterpillar (Fig. 118a). Mr, Sinclair makes the illuminating remark 
that he owned "a lawn-rake made of bristly bamboo, which looks 
very much like my drawing." 

5. Agt., a smoking volcano (Fig. 25); Per., what she called a 
"Big black beetle with horns" (Fig. 25a). But the body of the beetle 
closely matches the smoke of the volcano, while the antennae or 
"horns" nearly correspond to the outline of the mountain. 

A Series of February 15, I929 14 

Let us now inspect a complete and long series of February 15, 
1929. It contains no such brilliant success as in Experiment 4 of 
February 20, but out of 13 experiments there is but one absolute 

14" A Series" since there was another of the same date at a different hour. 



failure, the first. In this the agent drew a rat, the percipient two 
crossed objects like keys. 

2. In Figure 147, the agent's drawing represents a door with 
lattice on the upper half; it is made up of perpendicular and hori- 
zontal lines only. The percipient's drawing (Fig. 147a) consists of 
four perpendicular lines finishing at the top in curves like fish- 
hooks, and these lines are crossed by three horizontal lines. There 
is in the crossed lines a suggestion of the agent's drawing, a resem- 
blance greater than to any other of the thirteen. 

Fig. 147 

Fig. 147a 

3. The agent's next drawing (Fig. 93) represents a sun over 
hills. Mrs. Sinclair first seems to have got the notion of a sun, which 
was right (Fig. 93a). Then she made another circle and put features 
in it, as will be seen suggested in the agent's drawing (actually, in 
the original drawing, the features are plainly to be seen). Then 
she got the idea of something stretching out below it with curving 
lines, interpreted it to be a body, so probably, from mere inference, 
clapped her sun with features on to it. 

4. Agent's Figure 97 is a butterfly but the percipient did not 
get the idea of a butterfly (Fig. 97a). However, the divergent lines 
and the spots, five instead of four, and similarly placed, do seem 
to bear a relation to it. 

5. In Figure 96a, Mrs. Sinclair's drawing resembles a part of 
her husband's (Fig. 96), although she misinterpreted her mental 
picture. What she thought to be the leg of an animal, and which 
she drew twice, was judged by the way it bends to be a front one, 
but the knee of the leg roughly corresponds with the elbow of the 
pipe. Note that she seems to have got the bulge at the end of the 
pipe, translating it into a "foot/' naturally at the end of the leg. 


6. In Figures 98 and 98a, compare the three "sparks" with the 
three crosses on the box. 

7. The shape of Figure 94a is like that of Figure 94 reversed, 
and there is a suggestion of the strings, while the feet represent the 
pedals of the harp. 

8. The percipient in the case of Figure 95a did not get the 
picture of the whole balloon bag of the agent (Fig. 95), but she did 
of half of it, with a strong suggestion of the cords. 

Fig. 148 Fig. I48a 

9. In Figure 148a, bad as the percipient's drawings are, re- 
garded as reproductions of Figure 148, yet they do contain sugges- 
tions of it. In her left upper drawing we may suppose that an 
impression of the leaf -stem (but badly twisted) was expressed with 
a leaf-lobe directly below the stem, together with an idea of the 
veining, that in the right upper one the stem is corrected, and that 
in the lower drawing a notion of the veining alone is conveyed. 
Exactly so would the attention of the agent, when drawing the leaf 
or afterward looking at or thinking of it, pass from and to, or at 
least stress, one part of the leaf after another. 

10. The agent drew a necktie (Fig. 90). The percipient first 
drew what much resembled the necktie, even to the shaded knot 
(not given here), and almost exactly like Figure 90a aside from the 
"smoke." Next she wrote "Then it began to smoke/' and drew as 
in Figure 90a. One would suppose that the knobby extremity and 
the diverging lines suggested a burning match. 

1 1 . But no, the alteration appears to have been an anticipation 
of the agent's next drawing, already prepared (Fig. 91)1 In this case 
Mrs. Sinclair achieved a complete success (Fig. 91a), though she 


distrusted it, writing beside the drawing, "Must be memory of the 
last one." 

12. In Figure 92a the percipient got the first two links of the 
agent's chain (Fig. 92) fairly well. The succeeding ones are sug- 
gested by a series of partially superposed ovals, owing to misinter- 
pretation of her impressions. She wrote: "An egg-shaped thing 
smoking? Anyway, curls of something coming out of end of egg." 
Note that her combined "egg" and "curls" describe a curve similar 
to that of the chain, and one not far from the same length. 

13. The last experiment of this date resulted in two percipient 
drawings (Fig. 149a), similar but with differences as noted below. 
Presumably the "arm" of the upper drawing is a reflection of the 
neck of the violin (Fig. 149), the "hand" of its bridge, the "strings" 
of the violin strings, while the "something" very imperfectly stands 
for the body of the instrument. The bracelet (?) on the arm may 
result from an obscure impression of something curving in that 
region, really the volute termination above the keys. The lower 
drawing stops with the strings, but makes them more nearly parallel, 
like those of the violin. 

Fig. 149 Fig. 149a 

No exact mathematics can be applied to such experiments as 
these. But, considering the multitude of objects and shapes which 
must have been familiar to both experimenters, do you believe that 
there was 1 chance in 16 of the successes in Experiments 10, 11 and 
12? Or more than 1 chance in 4 for Experiments 5, 6 and 7? Or 
more than an average of 1 in 2 for such small degree of success as 
is discoverable in the rest, excluding the failure of the first? Multi- 


ply accordingly, and divide the product, let us say, by 2 for this 
failure. The result, on what I think a moderate basis, is 1 chance 
in 16,777,216. Figure any other way you like, but be reasonable. 
Or substitute the first above percipient drawing for that in 
any and every one of the above 12 pairs. Then take the next draw- 
ing and match it with the other originals. And thus with the others, 
if your patience holds out to the end of 132 exchanges. Have you 
found a single one which will suit as well as in its actual position? 


It is proposed at this point to interrupt the review of Mr. 
Sinclair's report of his experiments for telepathy by a test applied 
to the series which has just been exhibited. In the light of the test, 
as it proves, the evidential weight of both the earlier series and 
those which will come later ought to be better appreciated. The 
only way to explain (?) such results is to hazard the conjecture that 
they were due to the possibilities of chance guessing. Well then, 
let us have a lot of guessing done on the basis of the same originals 
and see what we get and how it compares. 15 

It seems almost incredible that any intelligent person would 
hold, or suggest it possible, that the several degrees of resemblance 
between 12 of the 13 originals in this series and the reproductions 
could have come about by chance guessing. Surely, no one possess- 

it be objected that we are not told exactly what the conditions of the series of 
February 15th were, though assured that all series were carried out with scrupulous 
honesty, that is true. But it is also true that the results of this series were not better 
than some where we do know that the conditions were excellent, and that this series 
contains no successes of such astounding significance as three in the Sinclair-Irwin 
Group, when many miles separated the experimenters. I would have been quite 
willing to have employed for the guessing tests the originals in that group, plus those 
of February 17th, done under excellently satisfactory conditions. (To be sure, the 
parties were in the same room, but it will be shown later that, even granting all which 
the egregious "unconscious whispering" theory claims, it could not account for the 
results actually obtained.) In fact, the Sinclair-Irwin Group was avoided for the test 
for the very reason that it is an exceptionally good one. That of February 15th was 
selected because I wanted a series of a considerable number of experiments, an un- 
broken one produced at one time, and one which exhibited results of a more nearly 
average character. 


ing an average quality of logical and mathematical faculty, if he 
takes time to consider, will be guilty of so monstrous a faux pas o 
the intellect. But experience teaches that some, even of excellent 
academic or professional standing, to whom the notion of the possi- 
bility of telepathy has long been obnoxious, are indeed capable of 
dismissing an exhibit such as this after a passing glance, with the 
exclamation, "Merely chance coincidence." It is well, then, to 
make a large number of experiments in order to test the chances of 
chance-coincidence to produce such a result. Perhaps, after that 
is done, even those most convinced that chance cannot account for 
such correspondences as we have seen will be astonished to find 
the extent to which results where telepathy has played a part and 
results of mere guessing differ. 

Ten ladies offered themselves for experimentation. Of course 
the likelihood was very small that any one of them would show a 
trace of telepathic faculty. As it proved, there developed no reason 
to suspect its possession by a single one of them. And it is certain 
that no one who disbelieves that any one gets impressions by telepa- 
thy will complain of our conclusion that the ten ladies did nothing 
more than guess. 

If they did nothing more than to guess, it made no difference 
what method we employed, so long as the ladies were given no ink- 
ling of the original drawings. Nevertheless, the exact replicas of 
Mr. Sinclair's 13 drawings of February 15th were separately sealed 
in numbered envelopes, and the lady was asked to hold the enve- 
lopes, one by one, in her hand, and to draw what came into her 
mind visually or by concept, choosing from such impressions ac- 
cording to vividness, recurrence or by whatever criterion seemed 
to her most congenial. She was told to take all the time she wished 
and was then left alone. Thus the conditions of the Sinclair experi- 
ments were imitated as closely as possible. The time occupied by 
the ladies for the series varied from half an hour to nearly an hour 
and a half. Every woman would have been pleased, naturally, if 
her results had been such as to give grounds for suspecting telepa- 
thy, but the results of the ladies differed in quality only by narrow 
degrees, and, as said, there was not the slightest reason to suppose 
that with any of them there was anything but chance in play. 


It is, of course, not practicable to reproduce their 130 drawings 
in this Bulletin. But they are to be mounted, the ten for each 
original drawing on a separate sheet together with a copy of the 
Sinclair original and reproduction, and the 13 sheets will be pre- 
served by the Boston Society for Psychic Research as a permanent 
exhibit which any visitor may inspect and judge for himself. 

As has been seen, we classified the Sinclair reproductions of 
this series as Successes, Partial Successes, Suggestive and Failures. 
This is a rough method, and others might increase or decrease the 
number assigned to any of these classes, except the last. There can 
be no question that there is but one entire failure. But however 
faulty our standard of rating, it is the same standard which is ap- 
plied to the drawings of the ten ladies. 

Not only did I use the utmost care in rating the drawings of the 
ten ladies, but I asked my secretary, Miss Hoffmann, a lady of edu- 
cation and keen intelligence, to do the same. Her rating of the 
guessing sets was as absolutely independent of mine as mine was 
independent of hers. 

Our mutually independent estimates were surprisingly alike. 
According to both, there were among the 130 trials (by 10 women) 
not a single Success, only 1 (Miss H) or 2 (W. F. P.) deserving to 
be entitled to Partial Success, 7 Suggestive, 5 Slightly Suggestive 
and 116 (W. F. P.) or 117 (Miss H) Failure. Compare with the 
Sinclair set, 3 Success, 5 Partial Success, 4 Suggestive, I Failure, out 
of a total of but 13. 

Before the foregoing judging was done, I had Miss Hoffman 
guess the whole set, twice a day, until another 10 sets were pro- 
duced, based upon the same Sinclair series. Our wholly inde- 
pendent estimates of the total results of these additional 130 expe- 
riments in guessing proved again to be surprisingly alike. Neither 
found a single Success, 1 (W. F. P.) or no (Miss H) reproduction 
deserved to be called a Partial Success, 5 (W. F. P.) or 7 (Miss H) 
were rated Suggestive, 8 (W. F. P.) or 7 (Miss H) as Slightly Sug- 
gestive and 116 as Failures. 

We will now tabulate the two groups (the sets of the 10 ladies 
and Miss H's 10 sets), taken together (260 experiments in guessing). 


W. F. P.'s Estimate Miss H'$ Estimate 













S. Sug. 






If we calculate the averages for the 20 sets of experiments, we 
can more directly compare with the Sinclair results. 

Average of the 20 Guessing Sets 

Sinclair Set 

W.F. P.'s Estimate 

Miss H's Estimate 




















S. Sug. 








But there is perhaps a surer way of making comparisons. It is 
sometimes difficult to draw the line between a Success and a Partial 
Success, a Partial Success and a Suggestive, a Suggestive and a 
Slightly Suggestive. But when the drawings represent not simple 
diagrams, but objects animate and inanimate, and a reproduction 
by Mrs. Sinclair is placed beside a like-numbered one in any of the 
20 guessing sets, it is very seldom that one cannot be certain whether 
one is better as compared with the common original, and within 
fair limits how much better. And the proof of this statement is 
found in the fact that when two persons passed upon the 20 sets of 
guessing reproductions, comparing them with the 1 set of Sinclair 
reproductions, to determine, case for case, in 260, which were more 
nearly like the originals, and to what degree, their rating was al- 
most identical, although they worked in entire and absolute mutual 
independence of each other. 

In the following table, Si. = Sinclair drawing, G. = a Guessing 
drawing, v.m.b. = very much better, m.b. = much better, b. = 

W. F. P. found the guessing reproduction of experiment 1 to 
be bad to a degree equal with the Mrs. Sinclair failure, in 16 in- 
stances. Miss Hoffmann found it equally bad also in 16 instances, 


and deemed another reproduction equally to possess some tiniest 
resemblance to the original in 1 instance. Aside from these we have 

IN THE 20 SETS (10 LADIES ANI> Miss H's 10) 
W. F. P.'s Estimate Miss H's Estimate 





















240 4 

239 4 

It is almost incredible that two human beings could come to 
so close an agreement, unless one had some clue to the opinions of 
the other, but it is even so, no smallest hint passed in either direc- 
tion. The fact is that in very few instances can there be the slightest 
hesitancy in deciding which is nearer the common original, the 
Sinclair or the guessing reproduction. 

If there is any reproduction of the Sinclair series whose resem- 
blance to the original might seem illusory it is that coupling with 
the leaf of a tree or plant (Figs. 148, I48a). But of the 20 guesses of 
that original not one is so near; in 18 instances (W. F. P.) or at least 
15 (Miss H) Mrs. Sinclair's is very much the better, in 1 (W. F. P.) 
to 3 (Miss H) it is much better, and in 1 (W. F. P.) or 2 (Miss H) it 
is better. 

Perhaps some persons would think that such resemblance as 
there is between the butterfly and Mrs. Sinclair's reproduction 
(Figs. 97, 97a) Is too faint to count, or at least is accidental. But, by 
the independent judgment of two persons, not a single one of the 
corresponding guessing reproductions is as near the original or 
anything like so near. 

Or one might sneer at calling Mrs. Sinclair's reproduction of 
Figure 147 "Suggestive." Only 5 vertical lines, wrongly curving at 
the top, crossed by three lines, to stand for a "door with hinges, 
lower sash," and wire screen covering the upper half! But not a 
single one of the 20 guesses approaches so much resemblance. Miss 
H says that of 19 of these, and W. F. P. of 16, "Si.v.m.b." Miss H 
says of 1, W. F. P. of 2, "Si.m.b.," while W. F. P. at least is sure of 
his remaining 2, "Si.b." 



In the light of such tests as those just now made, even such 
degrees of resemblance as we have found in the very weakest num- 
bers of the 13 in this Sinclair series take on deep significance. And 
the whole mass of our counter-experiments clearly indicates that 
the reproductions by Mrs. Sinclair in that series are prodigiously 
beyond the reach of chance guessing. 

As already remarked, it is hardly practicable to reproduce here 
the 260 drawings resulting from 20 sets of attempts to guess what 


The Best of the Twenty Gttessing-Sets 


the 13 originals (the same as those in the* Sinclair series of February 
15th) were. But following is shown Mrs. P n's set of guesses, the 
one which made the nearest, though so distant, approach to success. 
Let the reader compare her drawings, one by one, with the repro- 
ductions of Mrs. Sinclair, and judge for himself both which were 
nearer the originals they had in common, and by how much, 

A Series of February 17, 1929 16 

The conditions under which this series of experiments was 
conducted were excellent, and will be given partly in Mr. Sinclair's 
words and partly, for greater conciseness, abridged from his state- 
ment, aided by an examination of the materials. 

(a) The original drawings were made by Mr. Sinclair when he 
was alone in his study, (b) They were made on green paper, (c) 
Each drawing was enclosed "in a separate sheet of green paper." 
(d) Each drawing with its enclosing sheet was folded once, making 
four thicknesses, (e) And each pair of sheets, that with the drawing 
and the blank outside one, was put in an envelope [Experiment 
shows that not even when held up to a strong light can a drawing 
made and enclosed in such paper and placed in an envelope be seen 
at all], (f) The envelope was sealed, (g) The nine sealed envelopes 
were laid on the table by Mrs. Sinclair's couch, (h) Her procedure 
was to put an envelope, and each in turn as the tests proceeded, 
over her solar plexus, and when she had made her decision, to sit 
up and draw upon a paper pad. (i) Meanwhile, at her own insist- 
ence, Mr. Sinclair watched her throughout, (j) "Never did she 
see my drawing," he declares, "until hers was completed and her 
descriptive words written." (k) "I spoke no word and made no 
comment until after this was done." He adds: "The drawings 
represented here are in every case exactly what I drew, and the 
corresponding drawing is exactly what my wife drew, with no 
change or addition whatsoever." 

1. Agt., a geographical globe; Per., an obscure drawing most 
probably representing the head and neck of some animal. Failure. 17 

W'A series" because there were other experiments at another hour of the same day. 

iTThe general assumption is that Mrs. Sinclair got her successful results by telep- 
athy. But could Mr. Sinclair remember just in what order his drawings came, so to be 
thinking of each just when his wife was holding that particular one? Unfortunately 


2. Agt.j a wall-hook (Fig. 123); Per., the drawing of Figure 
123a, which resembles the original to a certain limited degree, 
having a narrow extension to the left though not curving, and 
broadening to the right with a suggestion o curving at the bottom. 

3. Agt.; a monkey hanging from a bough and grasping at an- 
other (Fig. 24); Per. drew as in Figures 24a, 24b (except that in the 
former the cut fails to give all of the pencil drawing. Instead of four 
curving lines hanging from the flower or whatever it is, the ends 
of each pair should be united by a curve) and it seems as though 
elements of the original were caught but misplaced. Each figure 
is of the shape of the under branch in the original drawing, but with 
the slant of the monkey; there are two as-it-were arms reaching 
down instead of one; and while the drawings do not suggest any 
animal, the script begins "Buffalo or lion. Tiger/' and concludes 
with the conviction that there is at least some "wild animal/' 

4. Agt., man and woman standing together; Per., two draw- 
ings, one almost exactly the shape of the woman's skirt, with two 
black spots below and touching its bottom line, exactly as the feet 
of the woman appear below her skirt; the other drawing similar but 
less like the original. 

5. Agt.j an animal shape, probably intended for a goat (certain 
species, as the Angora, have long horns which resemble those of the 
drawing, and goats generally have a short tail) (Fig. 138); Per., no 
drawing, but the single word "Goat/' 

6. Agt., a mandolin, its neck drawn with several parallel lines, 
the body of the instrument composed of four curving lines with 
three straight ones for the strings; Per., what may perhaps be in- 
tended for a flower, but its long stem indicated by several parallel 
lines and its blossom drawn with curving and straight lines consti- 
tute a strong resemblance, and entitle it to be regarded a partial 

lie did not record whether he laid them down in the order of their production. 

We have judged Experiment 1 to be a failure. And yet it is not fanciful to say 
that if the drawing of the globe is looked at from its left side there is considerable 
resemblance between the very incorrectly drawn South America and Isthmus of Pan- 
ama on the one hand, and the "animal's" head and neck on the other. If clairvoyance 
were involved, there would be no necessary guarantee that the drawing would be 
sensed to a degree right side up. Nor do we know how the envelope was held. 


7. Agt., a nearly round bag with a dollar mark on it, pursed 
and drawn up on top, as by a string; Per., (1) a circle with a vertical 
line protruding from its upper edge, (2) a cup-like figure with a 
line from its bottom to above its upper edge. 

8. Agt., a Lima bean (?); Per., a head wearing a turban, which 
in shape is conspicuously like the bean. 

9. Agt., a nest containing seven eggs and surrounded by leaves 
(Fig. 4); Per., a drawing which she interpreted as "Inside of rock 
well with vines climbing on outside/' but which presents features 
startlingly like the original (Fig. 4a). 

There is the outer rim, like that of the nest, and which would 
probably have completed the circle if the top of the paper had not 
been reached. There are the "stones," for some unknown reason 
obscured in the cut but some of them in the center showing more 
plainly and more regularly ovoid in the pencil drawing, resembling 
the eggs of the original. And there are not only surrounding leaves 
as in the original, but they are leaves of similar shape. 

Series of February 20 9 1929 

There were four experimental tests made this day, the same 
when the remarkable case of spontaneous telepathy occurred, in 
which Mrs. Sinclair sensed that her husband was reading about 
flowers and described them by drawings and script (p. 30). 

In the 1st, Mr. Sinclair drew a fire hydrant (Fig. 74); Mrs. Sin- 
clair drew as in Figure 74a. This was certainly a partial success, as 
the drawings compare. And for aught we know it may in fact have 
been a still better success, since Mr. Sinclair in looking at his draw- 
ing may well have imagined water bursting forth from the spout 
of the hydrant. Oddly, Mrs. Sinclair first wrote "Pea-fowl," and 
then drew what had nothing to do with a pea-fowl. This is one of 
the many cases where it seems as though Mrs. Sinclair had glimpses 
ahead in a series. 

For the agent's second drawing was a peacock (Fig. 75). And 
the percipient not only said "pea-fowl again," which constitutes a 
complete success, but she also drew what it seems likely are impres- 
sions of the peacock's long neck and of the "eyes" or spots of his 
wings (Fig. 75a). 

The agent's third drawing was of an hourglass, with sand run- 


nlng from its upper to its lower part (Fig. 133). The resemblance 
in shape of the percipient's tree (Fig. 133a) to the upper half of the 
hourglass is evident, its trunk may represent the slender line of 
flowing sand, and "white" sand is placed relatively like the sand in 
the lower part of the hourglass. The percipient's results seem to be 
partly from the lines of the original drawing, but also from Mr. 
Sinclair's thoughts about the sand. 

Mr. Sinclair's fourth drawing represents an animal (dog?) run- 
ning after a ball attached to a string (Fig. 9). Mrs. Sinclair's drawing 
shows (a) an animal, (b) also running, (c) in the same direction, (d) 
having a short tail as in the original, (e) the tail represented by two 
diverging lines, (f) a line extending from its nose, but touching the 
nose, while there is a space between in the original, (g) the line 
running left and at about the same angle from the horizontal. Be- 
sides the script which appears in the cut (Fig. 9a) Mrs. Sinclair wrote 
"Long thing like rope flung out in front of him/' 

I should say that the addition of that "rope" drawn in front of 
the animal at that angle made chance guessing of the combination 
at least ten times as unlikely, and, on the basis of my hundreds of 
experiments in guessing, I should not expect in ten thousand such 
experiments on the basis of the same original drawing one repro- 
duction as good in the summation of its correspondences. 

Series of March II, 1929 

1 . Agt., a fountain which, were it taken alone, might be taken 
for a tree, standing in what superficially appears like a long shallow 
tub-like structure (Fig. 53); Per., a long, shallow tub, with two tree- 
like objects above it and on its rim, (2) a drawing, the upper portion 
of which parts in the center and leans to either side, as does the 
fountain. The tree or plant-like objects are both said to "shine," 
which does not so well comport with a tree or plant as with a foun- 
tain sparkling in the sunshine (Fig. 53a). 

2. Agt., a melon on an inclined plane, having a stem and leaf 
on the stem; Per. y three drawings: (1) what suggests the leaf and 
stem of the original twice over, (2) an unnameable figure, but slant- 
ing like the original, (3) what looks like some kind of fruit with 
stem, also slanting like the original. 

3. Agt.j the figure 6 followed by the mark indicating per cent, 


not single-line drawn but having breadth as if cut out of cardboard; 
Per., the letter F, a failure except for the curious parallel that this 
also is formed as if made with strips of cardboard. 

4. Agt., a fishhook (Fig. 78); Per., (1) a figure very much like 
the fishhook except that the barb is transformed into a tiny flower 
(Fig. 78a). 

5. Agt. 9 an obelisk (Fig. 79); Per., two drawings, the first of 
which shows the three long lines of the obelisk but with a slight 
curvature (Fig. 79a). 18 

6. Agt., as in Figure 80; Per., as in Figure 80a. Only point of 
resemblance the two angles formed by the legs of the reclining seat. 

7. Agt.j what was probably intended to represent a German 
Pickelhaube (Fig. 5); Per., what the accompanying script called a 
"Knight's helmet"; very similar (Fig. 5a). 

i8Mr. Sinclair says, "Now why should an obelisk go on a jag, and have little circles 
at its base? The answer appears to be: it inherited the curves from the previous fish- 
hook, and the little circles from the next drawing." 

It is psychologically likely that a drawing just before made or even looked at 
sometimes unfortunately influences a succeeding drawing. The most interesting ap- 
parent example of this is Figure 8a made just after Mrs. Sinclair had been looking at 
the several concentric circles of her last reproduction in the Sinclair-Irwin Group. 
First she got a whirl of circles, then the whirl assumed the shape of a triangle, then 
came two angles differently characterized, and finally the angles multiplied and con- 
stituted a star duplicating the original. And a careful study makes it impossible to 
doubt that there were anticipations. Some are too striking to be likely as accidents in 
the same series, and in some cases Mrs. Sinclair announced ahead that such-and-such 
an object would be found among the originals, and was right. Indeed, in cases where 
a set of originals was not viewed by the agent one by one, as the tests were proceeding, 
but were submitted in a heap together, it is a wonder that as a general rule the cor- 
respondences were found in due order, and we are hardly able to explain it. I do not, 
however, count any feature theoretically left over from the previous drawing as evi- 
dential, but only as an interesting glimpse into the mental processes. Neither does 
Mr. Sinclair, as I understand him. Nor do I reckon any "anticipation" as evidential, 
unless it was announced in advance, and then only in a reduced degree. And Mr. 
Sinclair's principles of estimation were nearly the same. For he says (the italics mine): 

"Manifestly, if I grant the right to more than one guess, I am increasing the 
chances of guesswork, and correspondingly reducing the significance of the totals. 
What I have done is this: where such cases have occurred, I have called them total 
failures, except in a few cases, where the description was so detailed and exact as to be 
overwhelming as in the case of this 'Happy Hooligan* Even so, I have not called it 
a complete success, only a partial success. In order to be classified as a complete suc- 
cess, my wife's drawing must have been made for the particular drawing of mine 
which she had in her hand at that time; and throughout this account, the reader is to 
understand that every drawing presented was made in connection with the particular 
drawing printed alongside itexcept in cases where I expressly state otherwise." 


8. Agt., a row of five pillars (shown with a rather extraordi- 
nary perspective slant), each mainly indicated by three or four ver- 
tical parallel lines, an entablature above (Fig. 132); Per., four pillar- 
like objects constructed of vertical parallel lines, three to five, the 
presumed pillars having no entablature but in themselves and addi- 
tional lines showing the same slant as in the original. The pre- 
sumed pillars are likewise nearly equally spaced, but are of unequal 
heights, indicating that the percipient's impression was a visual one 
and that she had no clear idea what she was drawing (Fig. 132a). 

9. Agt., presumably a palm tree (Fig. 8); Per., two objects hard 
to name, but each in a general way curiously like the original, even 
to the bend in what is presumably the trunk, though it is not the 
same bend (Fig. 8a). 

Series of March 16, 1929 

There were seven tests on this date. 

L Agt., a burning lamp (Fig. 40); Per., as in Figure 40a, 
whether the drawing represents a tube from which flame proceeds, 
or the wick and that part of the lamp which is within the chimney, 
at any rate the same lines which conventionally signify light appear 
as in the original. Accompanying script says "flame and sparks/' 

2. Agt., a butterfly net (Fig. 110); Per., the handle of the net 
is duplicated, and the general shape of the net is pretty well shown 
(Fig. HOa). 

3. Agt., a carnation with four near-angles along its upper edge 
(Fig. 113); Per., four triangles in a row with a hint of lines below 
(Fig. USa). 

4. Agt., a trench mortar (Fig. 42); Per., a figure considerably 
like but shorter than the trench mortar, and likewise pointing 
upward, a stem-like extension like the axle in the original but on 
the other side, whiffs of smoke emerging (Fig. 42a). Here the im- 
pressions received seem partly visual, partly ideationaL 

5. Agt., a telegraph pole and four wires proceeding horizon- 
tally from it in two directions (Fig. 129); Per., something like a 
pole, and five lines proceeding from it in one direction (Fig. 129a). 

6. Agt., two hearts side by side, transfixed horizontally by an 
arrow (Fig. 126); Per., two balloon-like shapes side by side, trans- 
fixed horizontally by a line (Fig. 126a). 


7. Agt.; a frieze (Fig. 124); Per., what looks like a detail of a 
different design yet one which also consists of parallel lines enclos- 
ing narrow tracts which run in different directions (Fig. 124a). 
Even so much of distant resemblance would not occur anything like 
once in ten times by chance. 

Miscellaneous Examples 

February 23, 1929. The agent drew a steamboat with incor- 
rectly designed stern paddle wheel (Fig. 77). The percipient's re- 
sults are very interesting (Figs. 77a, 77b, 77c). There is smoke, so 
labeled, by itself, then the smoke stack with smoke issuing from it, 
then the paddle wheel in the water, its paddles more correctly 
placed externally to the rim, then what may mean smoke containing 
cinders. The cut of the paddle wheel has left out the axle-end, very 
distinctly indicated in the original pencil drawing. 

February 17, 1929. The agent drew an Alpine hat with a 
feather (Fig. 142). Of the shapes drawn by the percipient (Fig. 
142a) the one on the right may very possibly be related to the rim 
and the band of the hat, the top left one is very suggestive of the 
feather, and the bottom one, though called in the script a "chafing 
dish," is very like the hat. All this suggests that the attention of the 
agent was directed first to one part, then to another and another of 
his drawing. 

February 29, 1929. The agent drew a very intricate and un- 
usual cross, one with eight arms, notched at the ends (see Figs. 7, 
7a). The percipient also drew a circle of notched arms, but seven 
in number. One would suppose that when she began she had no 
idea where the drawing would end, or it would be more regular. 

Through all the experiments of the period covered by the book 
Mental Radio, and enough more to make 300, there is no other 
agent drawing resembling this. And nowhere is there another per- 
cipient drawing like it. Granting that the percipient should make 
such a drawing once, which was by no means certain (nothing like 
it appears among the 564 Guess-drawings reported in this Bulletin), 
then the chance of its coinciding in place with the eight-armed 
cross of the agent would be 1 in 300. 

February 17, 1929. The agent drew an open umbrella, with 
curved handle (Fig. 122). The percipient wrote, "I feel that it is a 


snake crawling out of something vivid feeling of snake, but it looks 
like a cat's tail/' And in her drawing (Fig. 122a) we have the curved 
umbrella handle, but it has sprouted a tongue and an eye; the 
ellipse of the umbrella rim is retained but it is a smaller one; other- 
wise the "something" is shaped wrongly. 

We have cited instances where Mrs. Sinclair proved that she 
got an inkling of some drawing in a series before reaching it, by 
writing down at the moment her conviction. In Mental Radio our 
attention is called to a number of instances of seeming anticipations 
even where Mrs. Sinclair was not so conscious of them, or at least 
did not write down her expectation that some particular thing was 
coming. Here is an instance not mentioned in the book. The next 
agent's drawing after the umbrella was a snake. Had it not been 
for the dawning consciousness of that snake, the umbrella handle 
might not have undergone metamorphosis. 23 

February ?, 1929. The agent made an American flag, with pole 
surmounted by a ball (Fig. 127). The percipient failed to get the 
stars but she got the stripes and the pole, and the ball, which last 
has wandered from its place, although the neighborhood in which 
it should be is sensed (Fig. 127a). 

March ?, 1929. Mrs. Sinclair wrote "Muley cow with tongue 
hanging out." And this is the drawing her husband had made (Fig. 
137). In 260 experiments in guessing, the originals being replicas 
of Mr. Sinclair's drawings on February 15, there was not one suc- 
cess. We would have said that Mrs. Sinclair had a success in this 
case had she merely said "Cow/' But she did better than this, for 
she got the particular "tongue hanging out," which certainly in- 
creases the value tenfold. I venture to say that not one time in 
twenty will a picture of a cow show her with her tongue hanging 

Pursuing the tests past the period until more than 300 have 
been had, we find that Mr. Sinclair drew a cow's head three times. 
Once the percipient's response was technically a failure; it resem- 

23When she readied the snake original, the percipient made no drawing, but 
wrote "Man running fast." If the reader will turn back to Experiment 2 of February 
8th, where the original was a snake, he will again find the cat's tail and living things 
fleeing. I more than ever suspect that buried hi her subconsciousness is the memory 
of some incident wherein a snake and a cat and something else in flight figure. 


bled horns, or rather antlers. The second time she got a chicken's 
face, again strictly a failure, but at least something with animal life. 
The third time was the "cow with tongue hanging out." 

And there were three other times that Mrs. Sinclair either drew 
a cow's head or wrote "cow" or "calf." For the first see Figures 15, 
15a. In the second instance the agent had drawn a face, not that of 
a cow but of a man. The third was a brilliant success, not in name 
but in form. The agent had drawn what was doubtless intended for 
a donkey with a harness band across its neck. In the reproduction 
the donkey's long ears were metamorphosed to resemble horns, 
and across the cow's neck is a band, which the lady interpreted in 
the following script: "Cow's head in stock." 

March 2, 1929. The agent drew six concentric circles (Fig. 
144). As in the case of the balloon (see Figs. 95, 95a), the percipient 
seemed to "see" only part of the original. She also draws concentric 
circles, but omits about a quarter of each (Fig. 144a). 

We can allow space but for one more exhibit, and this because 
of its seeming suggestiveness (Figs. 56, 56a). Of course, when we 
move away from correspondences in visual form or direct corre- 
spondences in idea we enter a region where the possibilities of 
chance relation are considerable. Nevertheless, literature abounds 
in associations between fleeing foxes on the one hand and guns and 
sounding horns on the other. It seems likely enough, therefore 
(though I would not bring forward this case as proof), that the 
sensing of the original drawing found a path for emergence through 
association ideas. 

There are many more tests described and illustrated in Mr. 
Sinclair's book. What we have given has been, save for a few excep- 
tions, according to selected and entire groups or series on particular 
dates. x ~ 


Mr. Sinclair remarks that "when in these drawing tests there 
has been anything [that is, in his drawings] indicating fire or smoke 
she has 'got' it, with only one or two failures out of more than a 
dozen cases." This would mean a much larger ratio of success for 


the drawings so characterized than that for the total number of 
drawings. Mr. Sinclair accounts for this by the fact that his wife, 
owing to terrifying incidents in her childhood, Is exceedingly sensi- 
tive to the thought of fire and given to taking unusual precautions. 
Readers will probably agree that this is a plausible and sensible 
theory. I propose to tabulate all such tests, including the original 
drawings significant of light. 

Original Drawings Indicating Fire or Smoke 
L July 29. O: 19 Smoking cigarette R: Various curved lines, 

and "I can't draw it, but curls of some sort." 

2. Jan. 28. O: House with smoking chimney R: Curls as of 

smoke. (See Figs. 36, S6a.) 

3. Feb.?. O: Lighted lamp R: Pipe, and "Pipe with fire in it/' 

4. Feb. 8. O: Pipe with smoke R: Drawing similar to a pipe, 

with smoke. (See Figs. 37, 37a.) 

5. Feb. 8. O: House with smoking chimney R: Failure. 

6. Feb.?. O: Pipe with smoke R: Written, "Smoke stack." 

7. Feb. 10. O: Smoking mountain R: (No thought of smoke 

but) Drawing very like O. (See Figs. 25, 25a.) 

8. Feb. 15. O: Smoking match R: Smoking match. (See Figs. 

91, 91a.) 

9. Feb. 23. O : Steamboat with smoking stack R: Draws smoke, 

"Smoke again," and draws figure like stack with smoke. 
(See Figs. 77, 77a, 77b, 77c.) 

10. Mar. 16. O: Lighted lamp R: Drawing somewhat like the 
part of a lamp within the chimney, and "Flame and 
sparks." (See Figs. 40, 40a.) 

Original Drawings Not Indicating But Significant 
of Fire or Smoke 


1L Feb.?. O: Pipe R: Failure (But a smoking pipe in same 
series of 8). 

i9O-original drawing* R reproduction. Quoted matter was written by Mrs. S 
as a part of her result. 


12. Feb. 2. O: Candelabrum R: Base of candelabrum correctly 


13. Feb. 10. O: Fire-rocket (felt unable to draw it bursting) R: 

Six drawings labelled "light/* several like swirling rocket, 
and words "whirling light lines/' 

14. Feb. 11. O: Muzzle of end of cannon, mouth indicated by 

double circle R: Drawing of "half circle double lines- 
light inside light is fire busy whirling or flaming/' 

15. Feb. 16. O: Gable and chimney R: Chimney with smoke. 

16. Mar. 7. O: Cannon R: "Black Napoleon hat and red mili- 

tary coats/' 20 

17. Mar. 16. O: Trench mortar, with wheels and axle R: Draw- 

ing similar to mortar and axle, plus smoke. (See Figs. 42, 
42a.) * 

Original Drawings Signif icant of Light 

18. Feb. ?. O: Electric light bulb R: Drawing and script very 

suggestive; but nothing about light. 

19. Feb. 10. O: Electric light bulb R: Two drawings somewhat 

like O in shape; nothing about light. 

20. Feb. 11. O: Sun-R: "Setting sun and bird in sky/' 

21. Feb. 15. O: Sun over hills R: Sun over a "body/' (See Figs. 

93, 93a.) 

This is a very noteworthy exhibit. In idea, shape or both, all 
the 21 reproductions show marked correspondences, with 3 excep- 
tions only, one of which is doubtfully an anticipation of an original 
in the same group, and another very possibly connected by an inte- 
rior association of ideas. 

20Statistically this must be rated a failure. But it is quite possible that in fact 
there is an underlying real connection. Perhaps Mrs. S had read the life of Napoleon, 
and had been aware that he was by education primarily an artillerist, and that the 
increased and peculiar use of artillery was the chief distinctive feature of his cam- 
paigns. If so, it is quite possible that the idea of cannon, struggling for emergence in 
her mind, by association of ideas got sidetracked to Napoleon, and became expressed 
in "Black Napoleon hat and red military coat." I have not discovered what the uni- 
form of Napoleon's artillerists was; his infantry, at any rate, wore coats brilliantly 
faced with red. 


Originals Representing Forms of Animal life 

In some cases, after the agent had drawn an animal, a bird, or 
some other creature possessing animal life, the percipient's drawing 
was successful, partly successful or at least suggestive in shape; in 
many instances it was a flat failure. But as examination proceeded 
it began to appear that a number of the failures represented some 
other form of the animal kingdom, however diverse. A careful 
canvass was made, including the material in hand produced subse- 
quent to that in the Sinclair book, embracing in all 388 experi- 
ments; drawings of human beings, animals, birds, fishes, insects, 
and parts of bodies, as a hand or a leg, were included. 

The Agent drew 103 such out of 388. 

The Percipient drew 98 such out of 388. 

There were found to be 39 correspondences; 21 that is, in 39 
cases, where the agent drew some animal form or part thereof, the 
percipient also drew some animal form or part thereof. If out of a 
total of 388, the agent makes 103 drawings of this character, chance 
would give about 26 correspondences, so defined, among the 98 
reproductions. In fact, there are 39, another proof, by a peculiar 
test, that something more than chance is in operation. 

Now let us make another test, this time including the material 
only up to the close of the period covered by the book, and not 
insisting, as we have done above, on strict recognition of reproduc- 
tions, but stating precisely how they compare with the originals in 

Where the Original Drawings Represent Vegetable Forms 


Feb. 2. O: Plant with 18 spots for flowers (?) R: 9 similar spots 

and writing "Many dots/' 
Feb. 6. O: Daisy R: 8 small assembled figures shaped like petals 

of daisy, and other figures indicating vegetation. 

2iLet it be understood that there were reproductions rated as Suggestive, Partial 
Successes or even Successes, where there was no such "correspondence." That is to say, 
the reproduction might not recognizably represent any living thing, might even be 
indeterminable as to its nature, and yet so notably imitate the leading features of the 
original (though omitting something necessary for identification) as to give it one 
grade or another of ranking otherwise than Failure. "** 


Feb. 11. O: Cat-tail R: Three angular protrusions somewhat 
like cat-tail leaves, and "Dog's head?" 

Feb. 12. O: Flower with stalk R: Flower resembling O; no stalk. 

Feb. 15. O: Stalk of celery R: Flower and stalk somewhat resem- 
bling O. 

Feb. 15. O: Leaf R: Indeterminate drawings, but with features 
like O. 

Feb. 16. O: Acorn R: Drawing looks like an acorn, whatever is 
meant by it. 

Feb. 16. O: Flower and leaves R: Absolute failure. 

Feb. 17. O: Lima bean R: Man's head, but his large turban is 
curiously shaped like O. 

Feb. 17. O: Leaves around nest of eggs R: Same shape of leaves 
around what much resembles the nest of eggs. 

Feb.?. O: Fleur-de-lis R: Failure. 

Feb. 20. O: "Red" flower 22 -R: "Red" flower. (See Fig. 14a.) 

Feb. 22. O: Odd tree R: Similar odd tree. 

Feb. 24. O: Branch of tree with thorns R: Apparently branch 
of tree, not thorned. 

Mar. 11. O: Melon, with stalk and leaf R: Indeterminate vege- 
table or flower, with stalk, and what looks like two leaves simi- 
lar to the leaf in O. 

Mar. 11. O: Palm tree R: 2 indeterminate figures, curiously like 

Mar. ?. O: Dead tree with pointed limbs R: 3 "horns," some- 
what suggestive. 

Mar. ?. O: Bouquet of "pink" roses, and leaves R: An odd half 
flower-like figure, marked "green" exteriorly and "pink" in- 

Mar. 16. O: Carnation R: Similar exterior four sharp angles; no 
other resemblance. 

22Here the original was not a drawing but a "red flower" that Mr. Sinclair was 
simultaneously reading about. 


AH the Original Drawings Representing Crosses 

1. Feb. ?. O: Swastika cross (Fig. 101) R: 3 drawings which to- 

gether give 3 of the 4 rectangular quarters o the swastika 
cross, and the directions in which they open; 2 drawings, 
each of which practically represents a half of the cross, but 
one of these reversed (Fig. 101 a). 

2. Feb. 6. O: Swastika cross R: Failure. 

3. Feb. ?. O: Patt<e cross (Fig. 81) R: A figure, four of which 

rightly placed make the cross; but by adding a bail (because 
of inference?) it is made a basket (Fig. 81a). 

4. Feb. 10. O: Eight-armed crosses (Fig. 64) R: Script, "See 

spider, or some sort of legged pest." (Note that the Arach- 
nida are eight-legged.) 

5. Feb. 15. O: Three four-armed crosses on a box R: Three 

six-armed crosses. (See Figs. 98, 98a.) 

6. Mar. ?. O: Eight-armed cross with notched ends (Fig. 7) R: 

Seven-armed cross with notched ends (Fig. 7a). 

Originals Representing the Sun 

In the course of 300 experiments, extending a little beyond the 
period reported by the book, there were but two of these. 

The first was on February 11, 1929. The agent made a sun as 
children draw it, a circle with rays surrounding it. The percipient 
made no drawing but wrote "Setting sun and bird in the sky. Big 
bird on the wingsea gull or wild goose." Mr. Sinclair calls this a 
partial success, and surely it is. 

The second was on February 15, more than fifty experiments 
having intervened. The agent drew a sun over hills, the percipient 
a circle with rays around it actually labelled "a sun," over a "body." 
(See Figs. 93, 93a.) This also was a partial success. 

Thus both times out of 300 experiments when Mr. Sinclair 
made a sun, his wife "got it" and drew one also . 

But twice, also, Mrs. Sinclair drew what was meant for the 
upper half of a sun at the horizon when there was no sun in the 
original. In one of these instances the original did have something, 
not a sun, considerably like the reproduction, and there was a cer- 


tain degree of resemblance in the other. But let these count as 
failures. We will allow the reader to figure out the chances of two 
of Mrs. Sinclair's four suns, in the course of 300 experiments, being 
drawn at the same time when Mr. Sinclair drew his two suns. 

"Line-and-Circle-Mcn" Originals 

On February 6, 1929, Mr. Sinclair made a line-and-circle man; 
that is, one drawn in schoolboy fashion (Fig. 106). The percipient 
got the head circle, adding dots for features, and her crossing lines, 
properly placed below the circle, roughly represent the spread of 
arms and legs (Fig. 106a). 

On February 10th, thirty experiments having intervened, the 
agent made two such men, facing each other in boxing attitudes 
(Fig. 107). It will be seen that just two vertical lines, longer than 
any of the others, enter into their composition. The longest lines 
in what the percipient drew are also two and vertical. And she got 
a confused notion of the legs and arms, each with its angle for knee 
or elbow. She failed to get any circles (Fig. 107a). 

All through the period covered by the book, and past it until 
the 300th experiment, there is no other line-and-circle man orig- 
inal. The percipient in the same number of experiments made one 
drawing in which head and body are represented by a circle and an 
ellipse, and the rest of the man by single lines. And she made one 
fairly well drawn head with hair, the rest of the figure represented 
by single lines. 


Series of February 11, 1929 

We have been pursuing the rigorous rule of estimating a per- 
cipient drawing by its correspondence or lack of correspondence 
with the agent drawing then in hand. Only when Mrs. Sinclair 
announced in advance that a described drawing would come in a 
series, and it actually came, have we given weight to an anticipa- 
tion. Such an instance was that of the snow and sled drawing of 
February 8th. This is not by any means to say that other "anticipa- 
tions" have not had weight, as a matter of fact. In some of the 


instances exhibited in Mental Radio the original drawings repre- 
sented objects of such character that it was extremely unlikely that 
there should be a near correspondence among the half dozen or 
dozen reproductions constituting the whole series, or in fifty guesses. 
Again, there could be a series with so many of these corre- 
spondences out of order that one is mathematically 24 and logically 
compelled to acknowledge that there was anticipation. Such a series 
is that of February 11, 1929. 

1. Agt., a molar tooth; Per., an ellipse containing 19 tiny cir- 
cles. This is emphatically a failure compared with the contempo- 
raneous original drawing. However, see No. 12. Before the draw- 
ing was made, the percipient wrote "First see rooster. Then ele- 

2. And now Agt.'s drawing was an elephant, as far back as but 
lacking hind legs. And Per. wrote "Elephant comes again. I try to 
suppress it, and see lines, and a spike sticking some way into some- 
thing." And she draws two vertical lines, related to each other in 
ribbon fashion, what looks like a pin with circle for head, crossing 
the band through a slit indicated by two short vertical lines, and 
below the "spike" two widely separated vertical lines. The "spike" 
crosses what I have called a ribbon exactly as the elephant's tusk 
crosses his trunk, the round eye of the elephant has moved slightly 
to form the head of the "spike," and the vertical lines below may 
stand for a feeling that something (really the front legs) should be 
below. We have some warrant for our interpretation from the 
words "Elephant comes again. I try to suppress it." Had she not 
tried to suppress it (because of the erroneous notion that it is but a 
memory of the elephant impression of Experiment 1), it is fair to 
assume that she would have tried to draw an elephant. She "tried 
to suppress" the animal, but his eye and "spike," which was really 
"sticking into something," but not in the manner drawn, seem to 
have persisted. (See Figs. 66, 66a.) 

3. And now Agt. did draw a rooster. Both elephant and 
rooster, with which she was impressed at Experiment 1, had come 
by the time Experiment 3 had been reached. This is rather too 

24Mathematically, that is, on the basis of a large number of counted experiments 
in guessing. 


much for "chance coincidence," especially as the Sinclairs do not 
have an elephant among their domestic pets. But this is not all. 
As Per. not only announced an elephant in advance but got details 
of the elephant when that animal actually was in hand as the orig- 
inal, so not only was a rooster announced in advance but when the 
original is a rooster, Per. gets correspondences. She writes "I don't 
know what, see a bunch, or tuft clearly. Also a crooked arm on a 
body. But don't feel that I'm right." What she drew was remark- 
ably like the rear three-quarters of the rooster, the "tuft" repre- 
senting its tail, "the crooked arm" its two legs in conjunction. (See 
Figs. 67, 67a.) 

4. Agt. y a table; Per., "Flower. This is a very vivid one. 
Green-spine-leaves like century plant," and a corresponding draw- 
ing with tall flowering spike in the center. (See Fig. 68a.) A flat 
failure, but wait for Experiments 7 and 11. 

5. Agt., a fishhook; Per., no drawing but script: "Dog wag- 
ging tail see tail in air busy wagging jolly doggie tail curled in 
the air." Well, a fishhook is somewhat like a tail curled in the air. 
But script followed: "Now I see a cow. I fear the elephant and 
chicken got me too sure of animals. But I see these." A tail curled 
in the air a dog or a cowl Wait for No. 7. 

6. Agt., a sun represented by a large circle surrounded by 
rays; Per., "Setting sun and bird in the sky. Big bird on wing sea 
gull or wild goose." Obviously this is a partial success. 

7. Agt., what was intended for the rear half of a cow, with tail 
curled almost exactly like a fishhook. Remember that in No. 5 Per. 
had an impression of a dog with "tail curled in the air" and a later 
impression of a cow. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sinclair's cow does 
not have a cow's tail but one made in the fashion of a hound's tail. 
Per. in this No. 7 experiment makes a drawing like that of No. 4, 
except that the central spike is not so long, and writes "This is a 
real flower. I've seen it before. It's vivid and returns. Century 
plant. Now it turns into a candlestick. See a candle." And she 
drew what she probably meant for a five-armed candlestick, with 
one candle in the center. But it is much like the plant called "cat- 
tail," except that the leaves diverge too widely. (See Fig. 69a.) 

8. Agt. 9 a long line with seven short evenly-spaced lines run- 


ning from It at right anglesprobably meant for a rake-head; Per., 
what is probably intended for two sticks of wood, fire proceeding 
from one of them, and smoke above. Script: "Fire and smoke- 
flame." Also, "Must be campfire as I now see an Indian warrior 
near it in a war dress feathered headpiece, etc." There is a certain 
amount of resemblance between the rake-head and the stick of 
wood with the more or less straight lines springing from one side of 
it. (See Fig. 43a.) And one remembers that an Indian headdress, 
of the type which hangs down the back, consists of feathers on one 
side and directed outwardly from the band to which they are at- 
tached. But these are only suggested possibilities of connection, 
and are doubtful. There is even another possible connection, for 
it may be that "Fire and smoke" was influenced by the cannon of 
the following original. 

9. Agt., the forward part of an old-style cannon, a double-line 
ellipse marking its mouth seen in perspective; Per.,, the half of a 
double-line ellipse with a curving tangle as of smoke, labeled 
"Fire," and outside the script: "Half circle, double lines-light 
inside light is fire busy whirling or flaming." Partly right and 
very suggestive. (See Fig. 44a.) 

10. AgL, three concentric triangles; Per., two wheels and over 
them the suggestion of some vehicle-bodyonly a line and two 
angles. Failure. 

11. Agt. f a "cat-tail," its leaves by no means correctly drawn, 
but there is no doubt of its identity; Per., a drawing doubtfully 
marked "Dog's head," its ears, if such they are, also its muzzle, long 
and pointed, much resembling the upper halves of Mr. Sinclair's 
cat-tail leaves. But remember Mrs. Sinclair's "century plant" of 
No. 2 with its somewhat similar leaves and its central spike; remem- 
ber especially the "candlestick" of No. 7, which so much resembles 
a cat-tail. (See Figs. 69a, 70, 70a.) 

12. Agt., ten small circles arranged in rows, pyramidal fash- 
ion; Per. wrote only "Nothing except all the preceding ones come 
-too many at once-all past ones crowding in memory." I wish she 
had stated which past one, if any, crowded most, and which came 
first. For it happens that her drawing for No. 2, so different from 
the impressions "a rooster" and "an elephant," set down at the same 


time, also consisted of little circles, also in rows, but more in num- 
ber and enclosed within an elliptical line. 

13. Agt., a drinking-glass with double elliptic line at the top 
and small ellipse indicating the bottom; Per.., double elliptic line 
above, same below with indefinite lines rising from the latter. The 
script is more significant: "Think of a saucer, then of a cup. It's 
something in the kitchen. Too tired to see." Pretty close. (See 
Figs. 72, 72a.) 

The occurrence of so many correspondences, direct and ob- 
lique, among thirteen consecutive experiments constituting the 
entire series performed at one time, and these by mere accidental 
coincidence, is practically unthinkable. 

Later Experiments by Professor William McDongall 

In the main, this review has dealt only with the period covered 
by Mental Radio, although it has exhibited some experiments not 
illustrated or even mentioned therein. A few of the special tabula- 
tions have also included a part or all of the later tests made by Mr. 
and Mrs. Sinclair, to the number of more than a hundred, the mate- 
rials of which are in my hands. When the tabulations have reached 
so far, the fact has been stated. 

But it may be well to say something about tests made by Pro- 
fessor William McDougall during a sojourn in California, July- 
August, 1930. He examined the proofs of previous work and 
consented to write an introduction to Mental Radio, saying: "A 
refusal would imply on my part a lack either of courage or of due 
sense of scientific responsibility. * * * It is the duty of men of 
science to give whatever encouragement and sympathetic support 
may be possible to all amateurs who find themselves in a position 
to observe and carefully and honestly to study such phenomena. 
Mrs. Sinclair would seem to be one of the rare persons who have 
telepathic power in a marked degree and perhaps other supernor- 
mal powers. The experiments in telepathy, as reported in the pages 
of this book, were so remarkably successful as to rank among the 
very best hitherto reported. The degree of success and the condi- 
tions of experiment were such that we can reject them as conclusive 
evidence of some mode of communication not at present explicable 


In accepted scientific terms only by assuming that Mr. and Mrs. 
Sinclair either are grossly stupid, incompetent and careless persons, 
or have deliberately entered upon a conspiracy to deceive the public 
In a most heartless and reprehensible fashion/' As we have seen, 
the circle of conspirators would have to be enlarged to admit Mr. 
and Mrs. Irwin, for they vouched for an extraordinarily successful 
series of experiments at long distance. And It would have to be 
enlarged to include Professor McDougall himself, since he sent me 
the materials of his experiments, whose results, though inferior to 
many of the series of 1928 and 1929, yet show a ratio and quality of 
correspondence vastly beyond chance expectation. Remember that 
the 260 Guessing tests resulted in not one drawing which, being 
compared with the original, could possibly be regarded as a Suc- 
cess, and this by the Independent verdicts of two judges. Of course, 
this does not mean that another set of 260 guesses would not show 
one Success or more than one, but it does show the great improba- 
bility that a particular drawing made by guess will correspond with 
the particular original enough so that It is possible to call it a 
Success. The 260 guess-drawings, according to one of the judges, 
showed 3 Partial Successes, 1 according to the other. Then say 
there was no Success and but 3 Partial Successes, and it is still un- 
likely that a particular drawing made in any short guess series will 
correspond with the particular original to the extent of being 
worthy of the title Success or Partial Success. On the basis of those 
260 guesses we would be warranted in assuming that there would 
be about one-third of a likelihood of getting either a Success or a 
Partial Success in a series of 25. But another series of 260 guesses 
might be more fortunate, so call it an expectation of getting one. 
Professor McDougall had 25 experiments with Mrs. Sinclair. 

On July 19th, "five cards drawn or chosen and sealed in en- 
velope and thick paper at Santa Monica and presented in turn 
sealed to Mrs. S. at Long Beach." Reproductions 1, 3 and 4 were 
failures. But agent's No. 2 was a "prairie schooner" showing two 
wheels with spokes and a long black line crossing the wheels at their 
hubs and standing for both the bottom of the vehicle-body and the 
shafts in front, while the percipient drew (1) a wheel with spokes 
and a long black line running from the hub, and (2) a wheel-like 
shape without spokes, but the line extending far in one direction 


and passing through the hub and beyond the wheel a short way in 
the other direction, as in the original. Here we have a distinct 
Partial Success. Agent's No. 5 was a postal-card picture of a part 
of Oxford, the most conspicuous feature in which is the tower of 
Magdalen College with pinnacles and high, narrow windows. The 
percipient made a drawing which anyone would recognize as a 
tower, with bristling short lines projecting upward from the top 
suggesting pinnacles, and high, narrow windows. The proportions 
of height and width are approximately correct. Below the lower 
window level are two parallel horizontal lines, which call attention 
to such lines in the original. This was drawn, however, while the 
percipient was holding agent's No. 4, his No. 5, the tower, still 
being in his pocket. It looks like an anticipation. But when she 
arrived at No. 5 she wrote "Turret of a castle and trees," and now 
she is right for the very original in hand, which does display, be- 
sides a river, a bridge and buildings, the conspicuous tower, and 
trees prominent in the picture. She added "Sword," "Scissors," and 
"Key/' which may possibly be erroneous impressions from the pin- 
nacles. So we have here a striking result, worthy to be called a Suc- 
cess. I have again taken pains to go through all the originals and 
all the reproductions, 413 of each, and find that but once besides 
did an original represent a tower. It was the Eiffel Tower, and all 
will remember its tall, slender and tapering shape. The percipient's 
drawing represented a long, slender and tapering conea Partial 
Success. And but once besides, among all 413 drawings, did the 
percipient present a tower. This was on the following August 16th, 
when, apparently as an experiment, the drawings were "done in a 
hurry" and no record made of the order. If compared with a par- 
ticular one of the originals, the "tower top" is a Partial Success, 
but it probably was a Failure. So here we have the factors: out of 
418 agent drawings two represent towers, and one results in a per- 
cipient Success, the other in a Partial Success; out of 418 percipient 
drawings two represent towers, and one is a Success, the other a 

On July 20th Professor McDougall made 5 drawings "at one 
end of a long room, while Mrs. Sinclair tried to reproduce them 
at the other end." The agent made what is supposed to be a stork, 
each foot furnished with three toes. The percipient made two long 


legs with three-toed feet, the legs extending from a curved line like 
the under side of a bird. Above and isolated is what looks like a 
crest, which the stork does not have. Partial Success. The 4th agent 
drawing Is of a ringed target and a feathered arrow sticking in it, 
the barb not visible. The percipient drawing Is practically the 
feathered part of the shaft. Partial Success. The 5th agent drawing 
shows a drum-like object with elliptical top, from the center of 
which a tube or spout projects vertically, with water rising from 
the spout, parting and falling to right and to left so that it looks 
something like a tree. The percipient drew (1) an ellipse, (2) an 
ellipse, (3) something like a very round teapot, with elliptic top 
and spout at an angle of 45 degrees, (4) something like the vertical 
trunk of a tree surmounted by a ball of foliage. Success; there are 
too many suggestive partial parallels to allow this to be doubted. 

July 26th there were 5 experiments, all drawn by Professor 
McDougall except one, that being a postal-card picture of trees, 
bushes and the yucca in bloom. Agent's No. 2 was a wheel with 
spokes and tire nicely drawn. Percipient made three circles in a 
row with something like the connecting rod of a locomotive across 
them. This is at least Suggestive. Directly before the yucca picture, 
the percipient described plants with flowers, but the description 
did not fit the original next to come, nor did the impression of 
flowers persist when the yucca was at hand, so I do not allow this 
to count at all. There were no other successes in any degree. 

Then followed experiments, one a day, with Professor Mc- 
Dougall drawing at Santa Monica, Mrs. Sinclair drawing at the 
same time at Pasadena, thirty miles distant. 

July 30th. A failure. 

August 2nd. Original drawing: a coffee-pot, its spout at the 
right of peculiar shape, somewhat like the profile of a boat's stern. 
The percipient's drawing was principally made up of a vertical line 
like the edge of the coffee-pot, and turned to the right from its 
upper extremity a projection curiously like the coffee-pot's spout. 
To the left of the vertical line seven dots. It may be a mere coinci- 
dence that in the original there are several, but not seven, dark 
spots in the drawing, placed relatively about as far from the right 
edge of the coffee-pot as the dots are from the vertical line in the 
percipient drawing. The drawing is Suggestive, at least. 


August 10th. Original drawing a teapot, and percipient's 
drawing, a palm frond, was relatively to it, a failure. 

August llth. Agent drew a faucet. Percipient wrote "Tea- 
pot/* which is a failure. But agent had drawn a teapot the previous 
day did percipient get a deferred telepathic impression? 

August 13th. Agent drew a palm tree and percipient's result 
was a failure. But, records agent, "Had it in mind to draw the palm 
in patio several days before. Mrs. S. seemed to get it August 10th." 
No agent should have in mind to draw one thing when he actually 
draws another. If the result is from telepathy, not clairvoyance, a 
percipient is at least as likely to get that on which the agent's mind 
has dwelt. On the whole it would perhaps be fair to count this as 
a Success. 

August 16th. Agent drew a flower-pot and in it a plant with 
sword-shaped leaves, somewhat like a century plant. Percipient 
first drew what one might take to be a stalk with five straight, short 
leafless branches, but with the script "Velvet bow with band." She 
added, "Then saw" and drew a plant no pot with leaves exactly 
of the form of the leaves in the original, and added, "I have too 
many leaves in the above." Right: she had 11 leaves, the original 
had 7. This certainly is at least a Partial Success. 

August 17th, August 18th and August 19th each yielded a 

Now let us take account of stock. On the basis of our 260 
experiments in guessing we would have about one-third of an 
expectation of finding in the McDougall experiments one Partial 
Success, but as another series of 260 guesses might be more fortu- 
nate we proposed to reckon a full likelihood of getting one Success 
or Partial Success, on the theory that Mrs. Sinclair was guessing 
also. But we have found 3 Successes and 4 Partial Successes (not 
counting a possible "anticipation," and 2 instances of Suggestive), 
It is not mathematics, it is not logic, it is not common-sense to con- 
clude that we have not, even in this series of Professor McDougall, 
although it does not equal some which have been exhibited, some- 
thing for which chance is wholly unable to account. 

It is not at all difficult to account for the fact that Professor 
McDougalFs results were not quite up to the average of Mrs. Sin- 
clair's work during the period covered by Mental Radio, both quan- 


tity and quality taken Into consideration. In the first place, It has 
for many years been evident that something depends upon the de- 
gree of rapport between agent and percipient; in other words, that 
some persons are better suited than others to act as agents in rela- 
tion to a particular percipient. Thus, we are told In the book (pages 
33-34) that among the friends of Mrs. Sinclair there was one pecu- 
liarly adapted In this respect Mrs. Kate Crane-Gartz. I venture to 
relate my own very limited experience, as fact, not scientifically 
guaranteed. I have had reason to suppose that I was getting tele- 
pathic messages only with two persons. One was with my wife the 
first time I ever experimented with her, and then I got most of the 
objects she was thinking of, more or less satisfactorily, In about 
eight trials. But I never again had any measurable success with her, 
though I tried repeatedly. The other person I was for a time in 
sympathetic relations with, and there occurred a number of inci- 
dents which convinced me that I was acting as a spontaneous per- 
cipient. The most striking category of these is the same which Mr. 
Sinclair describes when he says: "My wife will say to me, 'Mrs. 
Gartz is going to phone/ and in a minute or two the phone will 
ring." Repeatedly, when I had no particular reason to think that 
the lady to whom I refer would 'phone me, and when I was occu- 
pied with work, I would suddenly, as by a jerk, look at the 'phone, 
expecting it to ring, and in a few moments it would do so. I have 
even gone to the 'phone, almost without thinking, and stood there 
for half a minute or so before it did so. This period lasted for per- 
haps three or four months only, then faded out. Never at any other 
time, nor with any other person, not even with my daughter be- 
tween whom and me there is the most cordial sympathy, has there 
been evidence of this kind sufficiently striking and repetitious to 
arrest serious attention. So it may well be that Professor McDou- 
gall, however amiable and fairminded he is, not having been long 
known to the percipient and being invested with the awe of a psy- 
chologist of extended reputation, was not so well adapted to be an 
agent in relation to her as her husband or her brother-in-law. 

But again, while at times Mrs. Sinclair to the last of her experi- 
mentation analyzed by me got excellent results, I find that, whether 
because she was wearied, or too much occupied by other things, or 
more anxious and less spontaneous, or for whatever reason, did not 


in the later months do so well on the average as during the earlier 
months. The poorest stretch of the period after the material cov- 
ered by the book was that from August 1 to August 23, 1929, inclu- 
sive. There were 27 experiments, of which, according to my reck- 
oning, 2 were Successes, 1 a Partial Success, 3 Suggestive, 2 Slightly 
Suggestive and 19 Failures in a series of 27 experiments. The poor- 
est stretch of experiments during the book period was that ending 
with the series of February 17, 1929, nevertheless shown on account 
of its significance. Here there were 4 Successes, 8 Partial Successes, 
4 Suggestive, 1 Slightly Suggestive and 10 Failures out of the same 
total number of 27. So, after all, while the McDougall results did 
not reach the highest level of the later period, they did not by any 
means mark the lowest level. They greatly transcend the expecta- 
tion of chance, and, With the exception of five experiments only, 
were achieved when agent and percipient were either thirty miles 
apart or at the two ends of a long room. 

Attempts to Explain Otherwise Than by Telepathy 

Would Chance Coincidence Explain? 

It has already been proved by experiments in guessing that 
even the comparatively poor Dessoir results were far beyond the 
reach of chance. And it has been shown by experiments in guessing 
that the Sinclair results were much farther beyond the reach of 
chance. Such counter-tests may be repeated by any reader ad 

Would the Kindred Ideas of Relatives Explain? 

It makes one feel foolish to add anything more about the curi- 
ous "thob" to the effect that what is taken for telepathy between 
husbands and wives is really coincidence brought about by their 
community of thought and tendency to think about the same 
things. It should be evident that even if a husband and wife knew 
only one hundred objects in common, that astonishing fact of limi- 
tation would not imply that the lady would be likely to think of 
a particular one of these, say No. 92, at the particular time that her 
spouse chose it. For once it may be well to show just how narrow 
and connubial a range of drawings a husband may submit to his 
wife. (See Appendix II.) 


Would Conscious or Subconscious Fraud on the Part 
of the Percipient Explain? 

We must squarely face every possible theory, and this is one. 
Mr. Sinclair himself dealt with it. We must do so more thoroughly, 
in spite of Mrs. Sinclair's testimony to remarkable telepathic expe- 
riences in her earlier years (Mental Radio, p. 16), in spite of her 
husband's testimony about her actually setting down in writing 
what "Jan" was doing at a distance before she got from him the 
substantially corresponding facts (pp. 21-24), and getting in dreams 
or by "concentration" facts concerning himself at a distance (pp. 
31-33), in spite of Mrs. Sinclair's reputation for practicality and 
non-credulity (pp. 17, 139), honor and conscientiousness (p. 53), her 
impressing her husband as being "a fanatic for accuracy" (pp. 138- 
139), the grave reasons which caused her to institute these experi- 
ments (p. 18; Appendix I), her intense desire to be sure, and to 
satisfy every misgiving of her own (pp. 136-137), her urgency that 
her husband should watch her work (p. 53), her variations in the 
methods of experimentation to see what effect they would have 
(pp. 80, 136-137, 144), her reluctance that her husband should pub- 
lish his book until still more experiments were had (p. 137), and 
the great pains she takes to describe her method of development 
and "preparation" in order to encourage others to experiment (pp. 
116, 128). All these considerations are cumulatively almost over- 
whelming, yet we proceed in disregard of them. 

But the 7 experiments with "Bob" were at long distance, and 
the conditions guaranteed by "Bob" and his wife. 

The 7 experiments of July 24-29, 1928, were conducted with 
the agent in one room and the percipient in another, thirty feet 
away, with a closed door between. That is to say, Mr. Sinclair, in 
one room, would call out "All right" when ready to draw, his wife, 
lying in another room, would call "All right" when she had com- 
pleted her drawing, and then the two drawings were compared. 
He declares that there was no possible way by which Mrs. Sinclair 
could have seen his drawing. So that any charge of fraud would 
have to include him. 

The 9 experiments of February 17, 1929, were thus conducted. 
The original drawings were made by the agent, Mr. Sinclair, while 
alone in his study, on green paper, enclosed in a sheet of green 


paper, the whole folded, making four thicknesses absolutely Imper- 
vious to sight (as established in the office of the B.S.P.R.), put in 
an envelope, the envelope sealed, and the 9 envelopes put on a 
table by the percipient's couch. She took each in turn and placed 
it over her solar plexus, kept it there until her decision was made, 
then sat up and made her drawing. All the while her husband sat 
near, but absolutely speechless until her drawing was done, when 
the wrappings were taken from the original drawing and it was 
immediately compared with the reproduction. If the experiments 
were at night, the reading light immediately over the percipient's 
head was extinguished, since she found that somewhat subdued 
illumination favored passivity, but there remained sufficient light 
in the room for comparison of the drawings, and every movement 
o the woman was distinctly visible. If in the daytime, the window 
shades back of the couch were lowered, but again every object was 
distinctly visible. Under precisely these conditions, step by step, no 
professional magician could have obtained knowledge of the orig- 
inal drawing before making his own. 25 

As we have seen, 9 of Professor McDougall's experiments, later 
than the period of the book and reaching results defying the doc- 
trine of chance, were made with thirty miles between the parties, 
and 10 of them with the parties at opposite ends of a long room. 
Five more were done with McDougall at least watching his sealed 
envelopes. It will probably not be suggested that he was in a con- 
spiracy to deceive the public, but in these cases fraud could hardly 
have been practiced by the percipient alone. 

Already we have 47 experiments, 16 with an intervening dis- 
tance of above thirty miles, 7 with agent and percipient in different 
rooms, and 10 with agent and percipient at the two ends of a room; 
14 with agent near the percipient but closely watching her and his 
sealed opaque envelopes. 

But since Mr. Sinclair says that "several score drawings" were 
drawn in his study, sealed in envelopes made impervious to sight, 
and watched by him as one by one his wife laid them on her body 
and set down her impressions, the total number of experiments, 
guarded to this or a greater extent, aside from the later ones by 
McDougall, could hardly have fallen short of 120. 

25Unless by "involuntary whispering," a theory to be attended to later. 


Later, since Mr. Sinclair was very busy writing his novel "Bos- 
ton" and disliked the interruptions, he ceased (about midway of the 
whole lot, he tells us) to enclose his drawings in envelopes and to 
watch his wife's work. Had this been the case throughout, any 
report based on such "experiments" would not, scientifically speak- 
ing, be worth the paper it was written on. As it is, I should be quite 
willing to rest the whole case on the 120 or more guarded experi- 
ments covered by the last two paragraphs. More than that, I would 
be willing to rest it upon the 33 experiments conducted with the 
participants separated by the length of a room, thirty feet and a 
closed door, or thirty miles. 

But the logic of the situation is entirely against the assumption 
that fraud was used any more after it became easily possible than 
before, when it would have been possible only by the connivance 
of variouns conspirators. Let us see. 

L If advantage were to be taken of the relaxation of precau- 
tions it would plainly be but for one purpose, to increase the num- 
ber or the excellence of favorable results, or both. But neither the 
number nor the excellence of favorable results was enhanced. On 
the contrary, not at once, but by a general though irregular decline, 
the results deteriorated. The last 120 experiments of the period 
covered by the book brought about half again as many complete 
Failures as the first 120 had done. Mr. Sinclair reminds us that 
"Series No. 6 which was carefully sealed up, produced 4 complete 
Successes, 5 Partial Successes, and no Failures; whereas Series 21, 
which was not put in envelopes at all, produced no complete Suc- 
cesses, 3 Partial Successes, and 6 Failures." The declension, which 
has been noted in experiments with other persons, continued, in 
irregular fashion, after the period of the book. We have already 
noted that the worst consecutive run of 27 experiments during that 
last period yielded 19 Failures, while the worst consecutive run of 
experiments during the period of the book yielded but 10 Failures. 
Nor is there ever again, after precautions were relaxed, a single 
consecutive run of seven experiments with quite such astounding 
results as those of the first seven experiments of all, with "Bob," at 
some thirty miles distance in an air-line. Hence the percipient took 
no advantage of the relaxation of conditions, or she did so to make 


her work poorer on the average than it had been, which Is against 
human nature and practically inconceivable. 

2. It was almost silly to go further after fixing the fact that the 
opening up of opportunities for improving results by clandestine 
means was followed not by improvement but deterioration of re- 
sults. But an examination was made to see whether the drawings 
underwent any modification such as would rather be expected from 
the introduction of a new causative factor. None; they continued 
to express in seemingly the same proportions, some the shape, some 
the idea. Still in many cases they were unrecognizable as any 
namable object, yet when compared with the original, showed more 
or less of its marked characteristics. 

3. We even went so far as to compare the most of the later 
drawings with what could be seen of them folded and in envelopes, 
but unenclosed in opaque paper, when held up to the light. To be 
sure, Mrs. Sinclair had been accustomed to subdue the light, to lie 
with closed eyes in such a position that only the ceiling would have 
been visible had they been open, and to hold the envelope, or after 
the envelope itself was discarded, the paper in her hand lying on 
her solar plexus, all of which is an arrangement ill-adapted to 
"peeking." And, to be sure, Mr. Sinclair would have been consid- 
erably surprised had he come in and found a different situation. 
But our experiments were meant to test whether, on the supposi- 
tion that she did alter her procedure, her drawings were such as 
would have been explained by what was seen, even accidentally, 
through the folded paper held up to the light. Certainly, in that 
case, there would have been signs of the selection of heavy lines 
which showed through clearly, and some evidence of the effects 
from the paper being doubled. The result of the tests was negative. 

It is concluded, mainly on the basis of Section 1 above, but 
assisted by Sections 2 and 3 were assistance necessary, that Mrs. Sin- 
clair was as honest when unwatched as when watched, since, had 
fraud been used, it would have left traces. But, let me reiterate, I 
am favorable to any proposition to take into account only the 
guarded experiments, or even those guarded to an extent beyond 


Would Involuntary Whispering Explain? 

F. G. C. Hansen and Alfred Lehmann, Danish psychologists, 
In 1895 published a pamphlet of 60 pages entitled Uber Unwill- 
kiirliches Fliistern (On Involuntary Whispering). This brochure 
reported experiments by the authors which, they claimed, showed 
that the apparent success in telepathic transmissions of numbers 
achieved under the control of representatives of the S. P. R. and 
published In Its Proceedings (Vols. VI and VIII) might not have 
been due to telepathy, but to involuntary whispering with closed 
lips. Messrs. Hansen and Lehmann sat between concave spherical 
mirrors so that the concentration of sound, their heads occupying 
the foci, would presumably be an equivalent for the hyperaesthesia 
of a hypnotized "percipient." Each in turn acted as agent, to see if 
figures could be conveyed by "involuntary whispering," and 
seemed to have a large degree of success. How it is possible to test 
whether audible whispering can be produced with closed lips and 
do so without the exercise of volition is something of a mystery. 
And how they could be certain that some factor of telepathy did 
not enter into their own experiments is not clear. 28 But Professor 
Sidgwick, who five years before Hansen and Lehmann's pamphlet 
had considered and discussed the possibility of "unconscious whis- 
pering," 27 later instituted experiments of his own and concluded 
that something in this direction was possible. But he, William 

26There was one experiment with drawings. One of the Danish experimenters 
drew a candlestick, with a lighted candle in it. The other in response drew what in 
the cut looks like a crooked milk-bottle with a short curved line proceeding from one 
end and two short curved lines proceeding from one side. The latter says he meant it 
for a cat, but does not know why he furnished it with only two "legs/' The only use 
made of this drawing in the pamphlet is to compare it with a selected and very poor 
example from the Richet series and to assert that it is as good a reproduction. The 
utmost I should grant for the Richet drawing is that, regarded as one of a series con- 
taining a number of far more impressive ones, it is Suggestive, and the most I could 
grant for the "cat," is that it may possibly be Slightly Suggestive. But did Hansen and 
Lehmann think there was any resemblance between their reproduction and original? 
If so, how did they know that there was no thought-transference and why did they not 
continue to experiment with drawings? Were they afraid that if they did, they might 
have an intractable problem on their hands? But if they thought there was no real 
resemblance, what possible weight had their failure against a series of experiments 
wherein a large percentage of the reproductions beyond question did notably resemble 
the originals? 

27S. P. R. Proceedings, VI. 164-5. 


James and others thoroughly riddled the Hansen and Lehmann 
dream that perhaps they had explained the published S. P. R. series 
of experiments for the transfer o numbers. For one thing, a part 
of the experiments had been with the parties in different rooms. 
And the notion that when the voluntarily involuntary whisper 28 of 
a digit was misheard, a digit whose name somewhat resembled was 
most likely to be selected by the agent, was riddled too, so far as it 
applied to the English experiments. The Danish gentlemen had 
never claimed that their explanatory theory was proved, but only 
that it was probable. Later they quite frankly acknowledged that 
the Sidgwick and James "experiments and computations" had 
weakened even its probability. 

Since their pamphlet had attracted much and widespread in- 
terest, as it deserved to do, and since if they could establish or even 
strengthen the probability of their theory it would mean a restora- 
tion and enhancement of their prestige, set back by the counter- 
strokes of Sidgwick, James, Schiller and others, it would seem that 
the inducement not to stop short, but to go on with the experimen- 
tation would be almost irresistible. But they either did stop there 
or their results were disappointing, for nothing more, so far as I can 
learn, was ever heard from them on this subject. 

Nevertheless, the possibility, especially on the part of a hyper- 
aesthetic percipient, of catching, to some extent, the sound of unin- 
tended whispering by the agent stationed nearby, especially where 
there is no guarantee that his lips are always closed, must be admit- 
ted. This possibility has impressed some investigators, and espe- 
cially Herr Richard Baerwald, even beyond all logical grounds. 
The named writer has said also fort mit den Nahversuchen (so away 
with near-experimentation) ! I certainly agree that experiments for 
telepathy should be made with sufficient space between agent and 
percipient to make the suggestion that there may have been some 
perception of involuntary whispering manifestly incredible and 
absurd. Such was Mrs. Sinclair's success under such conditions as 
to make it probable that if there had been many scores of experi- 
ments under the same conditions a like staggering ratio of success 
would have been maintained. Nevertheless, I must maintain that 

ssprofessor Sidgwick declared that the whispering of himself and his colleagues 
was certainly voluntary, and that there was no success otherwise. 


the Involuntary whispering theory fails to touch many of the Sin- 
clair experiments attended with one or another degree of success, 
considering their nature and the peculiar character of the percipi- 
ent drawings. 

In the first place, let me observe that where the experiments 
were to transfer numbers the range of choice on the part of the 
percipient, endeavoring to interpret any faintly heard indications 
by the posited involuntary whispering, was strictly limited. If the 
agent were to choose a figure from one to naught inclusive, the 
percipient's range for guessing would be but ten digits. If the agent 
was to choose some figure from one to ninety-nine inclusive, the 
range for guessing would of course be greater, yet more limited 
than at first appears to be the case. There would be the ten digits, 
eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, twenty, thirty, forty, 
fifty, and in addition only combinations from among the foregoing 
or made up of a digit with "teen" or "ty" added. But where the 
agent drew whatever he pleased, generally an object, his range was 
unlimited, and the task of the percipient interpreting any indica- 
tions by involuntary whispering would be much more difficult. 
But still it would be theoretically possible. So we turn to the next 
and overwhelming point. 

Whenever the agent's drawing was one which could be indi- 
cated by a name, and the percipient's result corresponded to the 
extent covered by the name, it is easy to apply the theory of invol- 
untary whispering if the agent was near the percipient. Granting 
that this was the case (which often, as will appear later, we cannot 
grant, since the facts forbid it), it is easy theoretically to explain the 
response "Sailboat" to the drawing of a sailboat. We have only to 
suppose that the agent was so intently interested that, unknown to 
himself, he faintly whispered the name, and that the percipient, 
having ex hypothesi, abnormal alertness of hearing, caught the 
word, or enough of it so that she successfully guessed the whole. 
Still easier is it to imagine the transmission of Y in the series of 
January 28-29. The agent, being absorbed and desirous, simply 
whispered "Y, Y, Y," until the percipient got it. The reader may 
pick for himself other plausible instances in Mr. Sinclair's book, or 
even from the materials furnished in this Bulletin, such as the 
helmet experiment (Figs. 5, 5a). It is even conceivable that the 


agent's eye, flitting over the drawing of the peacock (Fig. 75) caused 
him to whisper "long neck" and "spots" or "eyes" (Fig. 75a), al- 
though no spots appear in this drawing and "peacock" is the word 
he would be expected to whisper, if any. But every Increasing com- 
plexity in the agent's drawing, which finds duplication in that of 
the percipient, every increasing difficulty of defining the drawing 
by one or two words increases the difficulty of the explanation. 
Take the remarkable correspondence between Figures 7, 7a. The 
agent, it seems, would have to whisper the following, or its equiva- 
lent: "Cross" (or "radiating figure"), "eight arms" (or "many 
arms"), "arms not made of a single line but having breadth," 
"notches in the ends." That is a lot for the agent to whisper, and 
it appears improbable, but maybe it is "conceivable." 

A much-esteemed friend writes me: "Those willing to press 
the unconscious whispering hypothesis to its extreme consequences 
need not invariably postulate the transmission direct of a word. 
They may go further. Let us suppose that in an experiment at close 
quarters the name thought of by the agent is 'Napoleon/ and that 
the percipient gets a small island and the name 'Helen/ It is theo- 
retically conceivable that, nevertheless, the explanation is to be 
sought in involuntary whispering; the name 'Napoleon* was per- 
ceived in a normal way (unconsciously) and then in the percipient's 
subconscious transformed into an idea associated with Napoleon's 
name. I do not say this is my opinion, but what I do say is that such 
an hypothesis is no more absurd than other 'explanations' put for- 
ward in the sphere of psychical research. Anyhow, experiments at 
close quarters seem to be open to the grave objection that some 
competent investigators reject them altogether whatever we may 
think of the grounds of such objection." 

Conceivable, yes, though hardly likely. When a medium for 
"automatic" writing or speaking is in undoubted trance, she habit- 
ually makes direct response to any intimations from without, and 
it is common to make it a reproach that she makes direct and un- 
blushing use of any information inadvertently dropped by a person 
present. Why the subconscious should act in so devious a fashion 
In another species of experimentation, why it should either from 
device or some mechanism now set in motion withhold the word 
"Napoleon" caught from the agent's involuntary whispering and 


set down Instead words significantly associated with Napoleon, is 
something of a puzzle. The trance-medium's subconscious, accord- 
ing to the explanation theory, is always eager to shine, and takes 
advantage of every source of information or inference to improve 
its product. Yet the subconsciousness of the percipient in experi- 
ments for telepathy, having heard the word "Napoleon" involun- 
tarily whispered, deliberately avoids achieving a full success! If 
done at all, I should judge this was consciously done, that the per- 
cipient consciously heard and consciously avoided the word. And 
this is conceivable. 

But that there should be so many reproductions which strik- 
ingly resemble the originals in shape, yet which do not represent 
the objects which the agent drew, and have no more ideational 
connection with them than can be traced between a cockroach and 
an archangel, or between a violin and an eel, and yet that the 
explanation for the correspondences should lurk in the involun- 
tary whispering of the agent, I maintain is practically inconceivable. 
Between Figures 25 and 25a there is an unmistakable close resem- 
blance of shape, in each two lines forming an inverted and sprawl- 
ing V, with a swirl of lines in each forming a similar shape of similar 
dimensions proceeding in the same direction from the apex. But 
the percipient wholly misinterpreted the meaning of what she was 
impressed to draw. What affinity is there between an active vol- 
cano and a "big black beetle with horns'? Run through all the 
terms you can think of which the agent could have involuntarily 
whispered descriptive of his drawing, if he whispered anything 
"volcano," "mountain," "smoke," "angle/' etc., and what could 
possibly have suggested the impression which the percipient re- 
ceived? Look at Figures 118, 11 8a in the same series, and ask what 
the agent could have whispered about his caterpillar which should 
suggest a shape considerably resembling that of the caterpillar but 
intended to represent a long narrow leaf with serrated edge. To be 
sure, a caterpillar sometimes walks on a leaf, as a big black beetle 
may perhaps light on the side of a volcano, but surely it will not be 
concluded that the agent would have whispered so discursive a re- 
mark. Whispering "caterpillar" would not result in "leaf," and if 
"legs" had been whispered, surely legs would have resulted and 
"many" would at least have increased their number beyond the 


number of points in the reproduction. View again Figures 108 
and 108a in the same series with the two foregoing. If the agent 
whispered anything, would it not have been "hand/' solely first 
and principally? Imagine, if you please, that he also whispered 
"thumb sticking up." But a negro's head is not a hand, nor what 
the word "hand" would suggest, nor does a thumb ever grow out 
of a negro's head, yet out of this negro's head rises that projection 
curiously like a thumb. Neither would "hand" suggest a "pig's 
head," yet the pig's ear resembles the thumb, and the rest of the 
head carries a certain amount of analogy with the hand. Again, 
"rabbit's head" is written, but little more than the ears are drawn, 
each a thumb-like projection, and as in the other attempts at repro- 
duction and in the original, straight upward. There is no associa- 
tion of ideas between a hand and a pig's or rabbit's head. Look at 
Figure 20, representing a coiled snake, and read again the descrip- 
tion of her impressions which the percipient wrote. Between the 
snake and much of that description there is an association of ideas 
which we can follow. The whispered word "snake" might naturally 
rouse a picture of the fright which the apparition of a snake inflicts 
upon birds and small animals. While it does not seem like either 
the conscious or subconscious, having heard the word "snake," 
which surely would have been the first and foremost one to whis- 
per, to suppress it and make a clear success a debatable one, we 
admit that this is "conceivable." But what about the "saucer of 
milk"? The agent may theoretically be supposed to whisper 
"snake," "coiled," "tail," "head," but hardly "saucer." I may here 
be reminded that some snakes drink milk, whether from a saucer 
or any other receptacle. But in Mrs. Sinclair's imagery it is a kitten 
that is associated with the milk a much more common combina- 
tion. Leaving this case, which is conceivably conceivable as the 
result of involuntary whispering plus a strange effort to spoil a 
success in hand, let us turn to the series of February 15th. Most of 
its members are to the point, but we will mention only a few. What 
association of ideas is there between a spigot and a dog's leg (Figs. 
96, 96a)? The name "Napoleon" might indeed cause one to think 
of an island named St. Helena, or another one named Elba, or a 
woman named Josephine. But why on earth should the whispered 
word "spigot" cause one to think of a dog's leg and "front foot"? 


The association of Ideas is not there, but the curiously resembling 
particulars of shape are there. Whatever the agent may be sup- 
posed to whisper in connection with the drawing shown in Figure 
98, surely "box" would be a part of it. And as surely, if the three 
marks of the box were mentioned in the whispering they would 
have been called "crosses," and not "stars" or "sparks" as in the 
reproduction. And "crosses" do not naturally suggest either stars 
or sparks. Figures 94 and 94a unquestionably have resemblances 
in general shape, in the two pedals which are transformed into feet, 
in vertical lines within the periphery. But why should the word 
"harp" bring a woman's skirt and feet peeping beneath it? Perhaps 
we shall be told it is because a woman plays on a harp. A woman 
does, yes, but not half a woman, and that half standing so that her 
skirt takes the form of a harp. If conceivable that "Napoleon" 
should rouse a vision of an island and induce the drawing of an 
island, would the island take the shape of half of Napoleon's body? 
The mind, conscious or subconscious, does not act in that fashion. 
Again, the percipient's drawing which was the sequel to the agent's 
balloon (Figs. 95, 95a) is not by itself recognizable as a balloon, and 
was not recognized by the percipient as a balloon, for she wrote, as 
we inadvertently neglected earlier to state, "Shines in sunlight, 
must be metal, a scythe hanging among vines or strings." The 
involuntarily whispered word "balloon" would hardly, by any 
association of ideas, have led to such a reaction; nor would the 
agent have whispered "half a balloon" or "scythe." But we can 
understand how the agent's eye may have dwelt upon one side or 
half of the balloon and how his attention may have wandered to 
the cords, with corresponding telepathic results. See Figures 92, 
92a. Here the analogies of form, although imperfect, are neverthe- 
less unmistakable, but what association of ideas could have led from 
the involuntarily whispered word "chain" or "links," to "eggs" and 
"smoke," or to "curls of something coming out of the end of an 
egg"? At a later date the agent drew a mule's head and neck, with 
breast-strap crossing the lower part of his neck, forming a strip 
curving very slightly up from the horizontal. The percipient's 
drawing is of the head and part of the neck of a cow, turned in the 
same direction. The long ears of the mule have become the horns 
of the cow, and matching the breast-strap of the mule there appears 


a narrow horizontally extended parallelogram In front of the cow's 
neck and extremity of its muzzle, which last the percipient seem- 
ingly tries to explain by the script "Cow's head in 'stock/ " But if 
the agent involuntarily whispered "mule," it would hardly suggest 
a cow, if he whispered "long ears/' it should not have resulted in 
long horns, if "breast-strap" or "strap" or "harness," this would 
hardly bring as its reaction the narrow parallelogram, which, what- 
ever it is, is manifestly no part of a harness. The resemblances in 
shape are distinct and unmistakable, but they are incomprehen- 
sible as the result of overheard whispering. Or look again at Fig- 
ures 78, 78a. The percipient, especially in the first of her two 
drawings, very nearly reproduces the original, but the barb of the 
fishhook has become a tiny flower with a curving stem. The resem- 
blance in shape is exceedingly impressive, but what words could 
have been whispered about a fishhook which by association of ideas 
led to the flower? 

So we might go on citing examples in the same category, which 
the doctrine of transformation by association of ideas of words 
whispered and heard utterly fails to explain. But the reader may 
find them for himself, either in this Bulletin or from the wider 
range of illustrations in Mental Radio.* 

Concluding Observations 

We have remarked that if there was involuntary whispering, it 
could easily explain the percipient response "Sailboat," and that 
by no circumambulatory process but by direct reaction, since the 
original drawing was a sailboat and "sailboat" would be the most 
natural if not inevitable word for an agent, intent on the experi- 
ment, and anxious for its success, to whisper involuntarily. The 
same may be said of the goat (Fig. 138), the chair (Figs. 16, I6a), 
the fork (Figs. I, la), the star (Figs. 2, 2a) except the extraordinary 
correspondence of odd shape, and the man's face (Fig. 20). But the 
star and man's face results were obtained when the agent was thirty 
feet away in another room with closed door between, while the 

*Neither M. C. S. or I ever made tfte faintest trace of a sound during an experi- 
ment. That was the law. And I never knew which drawing she was holding. I had 
just one order: to watch steadily, and be able to say that she never "peeked." I did 
this, and I say it, on my honor. This is an honest book. Upton Sinclair. 


agent looked at it but probably did not whisper so as not to attract 
his own attention but to be audible through walls for thirty feet. 
The chair and the fork were reproduced when the agent was some 
thirty miles away. The sailboat and goat were made in the latter 
period when the percipient was left alone with the drawings, and 
involuntary whispering is not a possible explanation. Part of the 
other examples given are from the period when Mr. Sinclair sat in 
the same room and watched the percipient's work, and partly from 
the later unguarded period. 

So, in order to explain the results of the experiments as a whole 
they have to be divided into three categories, and a different theory 
applied to each. 

I. Experiments in which the agent was near the percipient. 
Theory: Involuntary Whispering. Insuperable difficulty in apply- 
ing the theory: Many of the percipient drawings are shaped signifi- 
cantly tike the originals in whole or in parts, yet do not represent 
the same objects as do the originals, or objects which whispered 
words relevant to the original objects would suggest, directly or 
by association of ideas. 

II. Experiments of the later stage when the percipient was 
left alone unwatched with the original drawings in her possession. 
Theory: Conscious or unconscious inspection of the original draw- 
ings. Difficulty which the theory faces: The results did not im- 
prove or undergo alterations due to a new cause during the un- 
guarded period. 

III. Experiments when agent and percipient were either 
thirty feet apart in different rooms, with a closed door between, 
under which circumstances it is incredible that involuntary whis- 
pering could have been heard, or thirty miles apart, in which case 
it is unquestionably impossible that involuntary whispering could 
have carried. Theory: Chance coincidence. This is the only theory 
left for such experiments, unless conspiracy is charged, and that at 
different times would have to include not only Mr. and Mrs. Sin- 
clair, but Mr. Irwin, Mrs. Irwin, the Sinclairs' secretary and Pro- 
fessor McDougall. Refutation of the theory: The experiments in 
this class were of such number and had such success both in number 
and quality as to challenge the production of any such success by 


guessing though hundreds of series each of an equal number of 
experiments should be gone through with. 

It is credible that the large percentage of Successes and Partial 
Successes in the first 14 experiments and 24 among the latest ones 
should have been obtained by one method, that (aside from these) 
during the earlier months another and quite different method 
should have been employed, and that (still aside from these) later 
a third and quite different method should have been resorted to, 
and yet the whole mass of results be homogeneous? It would cer- 
tainly be expected that the inauguration of any new method would 
in some way be reflected in the nature of the results. But the lot 
produced with intervening distances too great to admit of the 
involuntary whispering theory melts imperceptibly into the lot 
produced with the agent and percipient together so that the invol- 
untary whispering process is conceivable, and this in turn melts 
imperceptibly into the lot where all precautions are discarded, and 
this again into long-distance experiments and out, without it being 
possible to detect any changes in the character of the results at the 
points of junction. Throughout there is homogeneity, some suc- 
cesses being correct literally, some incompletely and partially, some 
results only suggestive and some entire failures. Throughout we 
find some corresponding in both shape and meaning, some in idea 
but not shape, and some in shape only and misinterpreted by the 
percipient; in fact, all the peculiarities of Mrs. Sinclair's work are 
to be found in about equal proportions in all stages. There is per- 
ceptible a gradual though irregular tendency to decline in the ratio 
of success achieved, but in such a manner that the decline cannot 
be chronologically connected with any of the changes of method. 

The "peeking" theory cannot be applied to the experiments 
of Class I. The "involuntary whispering" theory cannot be applied 
to the experiments of Class II, Neither the "peeking" nor the 
"involuntary whispering" theory can be applied to experiments of 
Class III. 

Only the theory of chance coincidence can be applied as a 
single explanation of the experiments of all three classes. Let this 
be done and there is simply massed a greater amount of material 
for the demolition of the chance coincidence theory by anyone 


who will undertake a large series of precisely parallel experiments 
In Guessing. 

For myself, I am willing to say, perhaps for the fourth time, 
that I am willing to rest the whole case on those experiments to 
which no one, presumably, will have the hardihood to apply either 
the theory of "involuntary whispering" or that of "peeking," that 
Is to say, those experiments In which agent and percipient were 
either In separate rooms or many miles apart. 

An Interpretation of Mrs. Sinclair's Direction 

Mrs. Sinclair, on pages 116-128 of Mental Radio , outlines on 
the basis of her own experience the method which she thinks best 
calculated to develop an ability to attain at will a mental state which 
will enable some of her readers to receive and record telepathic 
Impressions to an evidential degree. I propose, at the same time 
recommending that prospective experimenters shall obtain the 
book and read the full directions, to attempt a condensation of 
them. To some extent I shall Interpret them; that is, state them in 
other terms, which it is hoped will not be the less lucid. As a matter 
of psychological fact, you cannot "make your mind a blank/' though 
you can more or less acquire the art of doing at will what you 
sometimes Involuntarily do you can practice narrowing the field 
of consciousness, so that instead of being aware of many things 
external and of various bodily sensations, your attention is fixed 
almost exclusively for a time on one mental object. Some persons 
at times become so absorbed in a train of thought that with eyes 
open and with conversation around them they are hardly conscious 
of anything seen or heard. But it is best to assist the attainment of 
such a state as Mrs. Sinclair does, by closing the eyes, and it is best 
that silence should prevail. When one remembers how in revery 
he has become oblivious to all around him, or how when witnessing 
an entrancing passage in a play everything in the theatre except the 
actors and their immediate environment has faded out of conscious- 
ness, he will have no difficulty in understanding what Mrs. Sinclair 
really means by saying that "it is possible to be unconscious and 
conscious at the same time," although taken literally that is not a 
correct statement. 


But, according to her, in order to be in the state best fitted for 
telepathic reception, it is not enough to narrow the field of con- 
sciousness until, approximately, only one train of thought on a 
mentally conceived subject occupies it. There must be cultivated 
also, in as high a degree as possible, an ability to shut out memories 
and imaginations, and to wait for and to receive impressions, par- 
ticularly those of mental imagery, which seem to come of them- 
selves, and to expend the mental energy upon watching, selecting 
from and determining these. 

We are told that it is important to relax "to 'let go* of every 
tense muscle, every tense spot, in the body/' and that auto-sugges- 
tion, mentally telling oneself to relax, will help. Along with this 
there should be a letting-go, or progressive quietening, of con- 

* * # 

She wisely says that if in spite of you the selected mentally- 
visualized rose or violet rouses memories by suggesting a lost sweet- 
heart, a vanished happy garden, or what not, you should substitute 
thinking of another flower which has no personal connotations for 
you. It must be some "peace-inspiring object," even a spoon might 
suggest medicine. The reader will understand that we are now 
discussing the means for cultivating ability to fall at will into the 
state for telepathic reception; we are not talking about experiments 
with that end in view. 

After considerable practice of this kind one will tend to fall 
asleep. It seems that it is right to nearly come to that point, but one 
must stop a little this side of the sleeping stage. 

When one feels that some success has attended the practice 
described above, he may proceed to actual experiments. The ama- 
teur experimenter is advised at first to experiment in the dark, or 
at least in a dimly-lit room, as light stimulates the eyes. 

* * * 

She goes on to say what means that you should induce mental 
relaxation and passivity, narrow the field of consciousness. But at 
this point I must depart from Mrs. Sinclair's precepts and recom- 
mend her own best practice. Her very first seven formal experi- 
ments were with her brother-in-law making his drawings some 


thirty miles away. The results were so remarkable that they deserve 
to arrest the attention of every psychologist. The next seven experi- 
ments were made with agent and percipient in different rooms, 
shut off from each other by solid walls; and their results also were 
very impressive. Therefore I see no reason why amateurs experi- 
menting according to the light that they get from Mrs. Sinclair 
should not make their very first attempts in another room from the 
agent. Let the latter do as we find in the book was done; make his 
drawing, call out "All right" when he is done, and gaze steadfastly 
at the drawing until the percipient has made hers and signalized 
the fact by calling out "All right/' then proceed to make another 
and repeat the process. At least part of the time, let there be an- 
other person with the agent keeping watch upon his lips and throat 
muscles, lest the desperate theory should be advanced that at the 
distance of, say, thirty feet and through solid walls "involuntary 
whispering" on the part of the agent reached the ears of the per- 

But how shall the percipient further conduct herself (we are 
here supposing the percipient is a woman) as the means of getting 
telepathic Impressions? Adapting the directions given in the book, 
we should say that, lying on the couch with eyes closed, and having 
sunk into that state of mental abstraction which she is supposed 
now to be capable of attaining, she is to order her subconscious 
mind, very calmly but positively, to bring the agent's drawing to 
her mind. 

And now we quote literally from the book, even to the expres- 
sions about making the mind a blank. Although not technically 
correct, it may be that to many not versed in psychology the expres- 
sions will be actually the best to suggest to them what they are to do. 

# * # 

Mrs. Sinclair warns that "the details of this technique are not 
to be taken as trifles," and that to develop and make it serviceable 
"takes time, and patience, and training in the art of concentration." 
There are special difficulties, at least in her case. In undertaking 
a new experiment what she last saw before closing her eyes again, 
particularly the electric light bulb which she lighted in order to 
make her drawing or drawings, appeared in her mind, and also the 


memory of the last picture. "It often takes quite a while to banish 
these memory ghosts. And sometimes it is a mistake to banish 
them," a fact which we have noted several times in the account of 
her work. Another difficulty is to restrain one's tendency when a 
part or what may be a part of the original appears, to guess what 
the rest may be, and to keep the imagination bridled. 

* * * 

It is quite probable and this Mrs. Sinclair recognizes that the 
procedure, now fairly clearly outlined, may not in all its details be 
suited to all minds capable of telepathic reception. Mr. Rawson, 
as we shall see in Part II, when successful, was nearly always so 
almost instantly. On the other hand, the percipients in the Schmoli 
and Mabire series were often as long as fifteen minutes making 
their choice. But It would be wise to begin along the lines of the 
instructions, and make modifications of method, if any, In the light 
of what personal experience suggests. 

It is hoped that there will be readers of this Bulletin disposed 
to school themselves and to experiment In conformity with the 
above instructions, patiently and persistently, and that, successful 
or not, they will make careful records and report to the Research 

Why Are We like This? 

(Parts of a Hitherto Unpublished Manuscript by Mrs. Sinclair) 

There comes a time in the life of each of us when we begin to 
wonder what it is all about this life. I mean, to want, with all 
one's bewildered and troubled heart, to know. What is life, what 
is the purpose of It, above all, what is the reason for the preponder- 
ance of the pain of it? This brief earthly existence, with its series 
of cares and sorrows and bafflements what is the purpose of it? 
It seemed so full of purpose in our youth full, rather of purposes, 
for youth has no one purpose. Youth's purpose Is to fulfill what 
seems to be the little purposes of each day, such as evading un- 
pleasant things and pursuing the pleasant ones. But as we pass on 
through the days of our youth, toward early middle-age, we real- 
ize that these eagerly, zestfully pursued purposes of youth were 


thwarted, one by one. If achieved, they brought some penalty, or 

Three years ago, being ill and not happy/ I reached the crisis 
of questioning. I wanted to know how to get well, and I wanted to 
know why I wanted to get well. And so, I began to ask, where is the 
path toward knowledge? In which little store-house will I find a 
clue to the answer? I went to see the medical men who have access 
to one little store-house. I went to the psychological healers who 
have access to another little store-house. And I went to the only 
religious group in the world today which seemed to have any real, 
or living religion. 2 From all three of these sources, one clue, one 
hint, stood out as a real clue. From the mass of purported knowl- 
edge it appeared to me to be the most significant. It seemed to be 
the thing which produced results in all these three domains, though 
the priests and priestesses of but one of them seemed aware of the 
great significance of this hint. 

It had to do with man's mind, to begin with, but it seemed to 
lead into the very heart of all the universe into our "material 
bodies," as well as into our mental hopes and longings and joys and 
despairs. So I set to work to experiment first with telepathy and 
clairvoyance. If clairvoyance is real, I said, then we may have access 
to all knowledge. We may really be fountains, or outlets of one 
vast mind. To have access to all knowledge. 

If telepathy is real, I said, then my mind is not my own. I'm 
just a radio receiving set, which picks up the thoughts of all the 
other creatures of this universe. I and the universe of men are one. 
1 had long known, of course, that my body was not my own that it 
picked up sun-rays, and cold-waves, and sound-vibrations, which 
shook the atoms of my being into new forms; that I picked up iron 
and sulphur, and phosphorus, and vitamines, and what not, when 
I ate the plants and animals of my universe; in short, that I had to 
pick up the constituents of a new body in the form of "fresh air" 
and "water" and "food" every day of my life in order to maintain 

iShe was undergoing the menopause; hence the special depression. It is important 
that every such fact should be stated. It might even be that the condition heightened 
the telepathic faculty, 

2Qf course Mrs. Sinclair is solely responsible for this as every other of her expressed 


the hold I had on the thing I called my body. But somehow, in the 
vague way in which we think of the mind, I had felt that mine was 
entirely my own. Surely it was not dependent on, nor at the mercy 
of, outside forces except in the one horrible, inexorable way of its 
dependence on my own body. It was free, of course, to accept ideas 
from other minds, if it wished; but it did not have to, unless it 
wanted to. So I had believed. Now, with my new clue, I began to 
wonder If all my life I had not been In error In my thinking, if I 
had not got the scheme of things turned upside down. Had I been 
looking at an image in a mirror, a reversal of the truth? Was my 
body dependent on my mind when I had thought my mind was 
dependent on my body? Was it sick when my mind was, and did 
it die when my mind died of discouragement? And was my mind 
my own, or did it receive and accept thoughts constantly from all 
the other creatures of the universe without my being able to pre- 
vent it, without my even knowing it? * * * 

What is myself, anyway body or mind, or both, or one and the 
same thing, or what? I must find out! Is my mind a hodge-podge 
of its own thoughts and the silent, ever-changing thoughts of all 
other creatures, just as my body is a hodge-podge of the elements of 
the plants and animals and light-rays it is fed on and made of? 

Here were a lot of questions which had become terribly Impor- 
tant, and I couldn't answer them, I could' t really answer any of 
them. But I had a clue a new clue which might lead anywhere 
to heaven or to hell. * * * 

Some of the best scientific minds of the world have experi- 
mented with telepathy and believe that it is a proven fact. I have 
read much of this evidence, and I have watched a "medium" dem- 
onstrate telepathy. But perhaps he was deceiving himself perhaps 
he used some trick without realizing it, such as listening to the 
breathing of the sender of the thoughts he received. I do not see 
how this coud be, but it is possible, so I am told by experienced 
Investigators of psychic phenomena. However, there is this mass of 
evidence, in books, written by men of the highest scientific training 
who have made experiments in telepathy and who are convinced 
that it is a fact. * * * 

But despite all this evidence, I seem to be uncertain. And this 
is too serious a matter to leave to uncertainty. So I set to work to 


make my own experiments. I have experimented already with a 
"medium/' but I have been warned about the mediumistic tem- 
perament. These psychically sensitive persons are, thanks to the 
very quality of mind which causes them to be sensitive, overly prone 
to unconscious thinking which is supposed to take a form of con- 
scious instability. So I must find a hard-boiled materialistic-think- 
ing person to experiment with one who is prone to object thinking, 
who can maintain a wide-awake consciousness with which to watch 
his own thoughts to prevent any self-deception, while I, by a trust- 
worthy mechanical device, i.e., a writing pad and pencil, protect my 
mind from deceiving itself. I find such a hard-boiled object mind 
in the person of my brother-in-law, who is a most capable, practical 
business man, and whose philosophy of life does not include any 
"mysticism/* or unconscious knowledge. Being ill, however, and 
with no better way to pass the time, he consents to act as sender of 
telepathic messages to me. He is domiciled thirty miles away from 
me, and so we cannot look over each other's shoulders at drawings, 
nor listen to each other's breathing. 

We proceed as follows: Each day at one o'clock, an hour which 
suits the convenience of both of us, he sits at a table in his home 
and makes a drawing of some simple object, such as a table-fork, or 
an ink-bottle, a duck, or a basket of fruit. 3 Then he gazes steadily 
at his drawing while he concentrates his mind intently on "visual- 
izing" the object before him. In other words, he does not let his 
mind wander one instant from the picture of the fork, or the ink- 
bottle, or whatever he has drawn. He may gaze at the original 
object instead of at his drawing, but he must not think of anything 
else but how it looks. The purpose of the drawing is for proof to 
me that this was actually what he thought of at the appointed hour. 
If his mind wanders off to thoughts of something else, which he has 
no drawing of, I may get these wandering thoughts. Then he will 
forget these wandering, unrecorded thoughts, and I will have noth- 
ing to prove that he ever thought them. 

3This was written when it was expected that the experiments with the brother- 
in-law would continue some time. The general character of the objects is stated. In 
fact neither duck nor basket of fruit figured. The experiments with "Bob" soon 
ceased, not only because they involved a strain upon him in his then condition of 
health but because Mrs. Sinclair suspected that she was telepathically having her own 
feelings of depression increased by his. 


When he has finished the fifteen minutes of steady concentra- 
tion on one object, he dates his drawing and puts it away, until the 
time when we are to meet and compare our records. At my end of 
the "wireless/' I have done a different mental stunt. I have reclined 
on a couch, with body completely relaxed and my mind in a dreamy, 
almost unconscious state, alternating with a state of gazing, with 
closed eyes, into grey space, looking on this grey background for 
whatever picture, or thought-form may appear there. When a form 
appears, I record it at once. I reach for my pad and pencil and 
write down what I have seen, and then I make a drawing of it, and 
then I relax again and look dreamily into space again to see if 
another vision will appear, or if this same one will return to assure 
me that it is the right one. At the end of fifteen minutes, the period 
of time we arbitrarily agreed upon for each day's experiment, I date 
my drawing and file it until the day comes to compare notes with 
my brother-in-law. 

Each day thereafter, for several days, my brother-in-law goes 
through this same performance, varying it only by his choice of a 
different object to draw and concentrate upon each time. Every 
three or four days we meet and compare notes. 

One day, while I lay passively waiting for a "vision/* a chair 
of a certain design floated before my mind. It was so vivid that I 
felt absolutely certain that this was the object my brother-in-law, 
thirty miles away, was visualizing for me. Other objects on other 
occasions had been vivid, but this one was not merely vivid; in some 
mysterious way, it carried absolute conviction with it. I knew posi- 
tively that my mind was not deceiving me. I was so sure that this 
chair had come "on the air" from my brother-in-law's mind to 
mine, that I jumped up and went to the telephone and rang him 
up. His wife was in the room with him and my husband was in 
the room with me, and we called on them as witnesses for we had 
set out on the experiment determined that there was to be no de- 
ception, of each other, nor of ourselves. I wanted the truth about 
this matter I was at life's crisis, at the place where my whole soul 
cried out, "What is the meaning of it all, anyway?*' And my 
brother-in-law knew my mood, and a painful, lingering illness was 
rapidly bringing him to share it. My vision of the chair, and my 
drawing of it, were entirely correct. This was our first thrilling 


success. Others followed it, and In the meantime, my husband and 
I had made together some similar experiments, with success. Before 
the summer was over, four persons my husband, my brother-in-law, 
his wife, and I had become convinced of the reality of telepathy. 
Then, having read a book by an English physicist (An Experiment 
With Time, by J. W. Dunne), I began keeping records of my dreams 
according to Mr. Dunne's method, In order to see if, as he thought, 
they would render evidence of foreknowledge of future events. 
Clairvoyance is the usual term for this form of psychic phenomena, 
but Mr. Dunne, being a physicist, is averse to mixing it with psychic 
things to the extent of using the regular language, so he calls it "an 
experiment with time" and writes a book about it In the language 
of physics. Not being a physicist, I'm quite willing to stick to the 
well-known word, clairvoyance, even at the risk of repelling those 
ignorant persons who think that all psychic phenomena is trickery. 
There are hordes of charlatans who call themselves mediums, just 
as there are hordes of physicians who are charlatans, and of Chris- 
tians who are cheats, and of bankers who are dishonest. So, having 
read Mr. Dunne's useful book, I set out to record my dreams and 
to watch for their "coming true/' Some of them did. Some which 
could not be accounted for by coincidence. Some others came true 
which were clearly due to telepathy between my husband's mind 
and my own. I dreamed that I was doing things which it turned 
out he was actually doing, at a distance from me, and at the time 
at which I was having the dream. Also, during these months, I made 
some experiments on a young hypnotist I knew. I had no intention 
of letting him hypnotize me, but I asked him to try to. I knew he 
would never consent to the telepathy experiment if he suspected 
it; he would not want me reading his secret thoughts. But he had 
played some tricks on me, so I felt justified. And so, when he con- 
centrated on the task of putting me into a hypnotic sleep, I concen- 
trated on "seeing" his thoughts. Again and again I succeeded in 
this experiment. I discovered his sorrows, his sins, his hopes, his 
daily adventures. And I recorded them and faced him with them 
and became his "Mother Confessor," and most generously re- 
wardecl his unintentional confidence. I am sure he will agree that 
I made a full return to him for the knowledge he inadvertently 


enabled me to obtain the knowledge of the interaction of minds. 
* * # 


Classified complete list of drawings made by Mr. Upton Sin- 
clair in his experiments with Mrs. Sinclair, plus those by his secre- 
tary, mostly diagrams, and the seven by her brother-in-law, from 
July 8, 1928, to March 16, 1929, inclusive, being the period covered 
by his book. 

Diagrams,, Etc* 

Asterisksfive, Circles five small, Circlesten small, Circles 
six concentric, Circles three interlinking, Circle and Center, 
etc., Crescent approximate, Cross pattde, Cross swastika, Cross 
swastika, Cross eight arms, notched at ends, Diamond, Heart, 
Hexagon, Horn-shaped figure, Oblong vertical, Oval over 
larger oval and touching it, Spiral, Spiral, Squares four concen- 
tric, Star odd-shaped, Star six-pointed, Triangles three concen- 
tric, Wheel figure like rimless. 

Letters of Alphabet 

(Script) B, E, M, Y. (Print) KKK, M.C.S., M.C.S., T, 
UPTON, W lying on its side? 

Figures, Etc. 

Human Beings 

Boy with hoop, Eye dropping tears, Face grinning, Face 
grinning, Face hairy, Face man's, bearded, Face round, with 
round ears, Foot with roller skate, Girl, Hand with pointing 
finger, "Happy Hooligan," Head of boy, wearing hat, Head of 
girl, wearing hat, Head of man, bald, profile, Head profile, 
Head and Bust of woman, bundle on head, Leg and Foot in 
buckled shoe, Leg and Foot with roller skate, Legs two, one of 
wood, Man line and circle, Man profile, waiter, Man walking, 
Man and Woman, Mandarin, Men line and circle, Skull and 
Crossbones, Woman nude. 



Bat, Batwith wings spread, Cow head, Cow head, tongue 
protruding, Cow horned, Cow rear half, Cow rear half, Deer- 
running, front part, Dog and man's foot, Elephant, Fox run- 
ning, Goat (probably), Horse head, Kitten running after string, 
Monkey hanging from bough, Rat, Reindeer, Walrus, Whale- 
spouting, Wolf head. 


Bird baby, Bird head, Chicken coming from shell, 
Chicken cooked, on plate, Duck with feet, Eagle, Heron, Nest 
with eggs, Parrot head, Peacock, Rooster. 

Insects, Fishes, Etc. 

Butterfly, Caterpillar, Crab, Fish, Inch-wormcurved, Insect 
eight-legged, Lobster, Shell sea, Snake, Snake, Spider, Turtle. 


Acorn, Apple, Bean lima (?), Cactus branch, Carnation, 
Cat-tail, Cat-tail, Celery, Clover three-leaf (?), Clover three-leaf 
(?), Daisy, Flower, Flower on stalk, Flower with narrow leaves, 
Leaf, Leaf poplar (?), Melon on inclined plane, Plant potted, 
Roses pink, with green leaves, Tree branch, Tree odd, Tree- 
palm, Tree bare, with pointed limbs. 


Ash-can with bail, Bed, Bottle, Bottle milk, Bottle square, 
lower half shaded, Broom, Broom, Bureau and mirror, Camp- 
stool, Candelabrum, Chair, Chair, Chair easy, Cup with han- 
dle, Desk four-legged, Dish with rising steam, Door-knob, Elec- 
tric Light Bulb (object itself), Electric Light Bulb, Fork table, 
Fork three-pronged, long handle, Glass drinking, Key, Key, 
Lamp burning, Lamp burning, Picture black frame, Spigot, 
Table, Table with curved legs, Telephone, Telephone, Vase- 
ovoid, Wall-hook. 



Bag, Bag round, with protruding top, Belt-buckle, Book 
black, Bottle pen and ink, Boxrounded, with cover up, Cane, 
Cane, Cap, Cigarette smoking, Clock alarm, Eye-glasses, Eye- 
glasses, Fan partly spread, Fan spread, Hat, Hat, Hat with 
feather, Necktie, Pin diamond, Pipe smoking, Pipe smoking, 
Ring with stone, Scissors, Shoe, Soap cake, Suit man's, with 
knee breeches, Tooth-brush, Tooth-brush, Watch, Watch, Watch, 
Watch face. 

War, Hunting, Etc. 

Arrow, Bow and Arrow, Cannon, Cannon muzzle, Daggers 
with hilts, crossed, Epaulet, Fish-hook, Fish-hook, Fish-hook, 
Helmet, Trench-mortarpointing up. 


Balloon, Cart child's, Dumb-bell, Dumb-bell, Football, 
Hammock slung from post, Indian Club, Skyrocket, Sled, Ten- 
nis Racket, Tennis Racket, Tennis Racket. 


Automobile, Elevated Railroad, Railroad Engine, Sailboat, 
Sailboat, Sailboat side view, Sled drawn by dogs, Steamboat 
on water. 

Objects Related to Sound 

Bell, Bell, Bell lines radiating from tongue, Harp, Horn- 
straight, Mandolin, Musical Staff, Notes musical, Tuba brass, 

Buildings, Etc. 

Column, Derrick oil, Derrick oil, Door with grating, 
Frieze Design, Gable end with tall chimney, House with many 
dots for windows, House with smoking chimney, House with 
smoking chimney, Obelisk, Pillar, etc., Pillars row, etc., Wind- 



Ax and written word "Ax/' Box open, Box with three 
crosses, Butterfly-net, Flag, FlagJapanese, fringed, on staff, 
Fleur-de-lis, Gate, Gibbet and Noose, Globe world, Hearts two, 
pierced by arrow, Hill with birds above, Hill with sun above, 
Hoe, Hook in hasp, Hose end, with water, Hourglass with 
running sand, Hydrant, Ladder, Machine scraper (?), Mail Bag, 
Money five-cent piece, Mortuary monument (?), Police Billy, 
Rake head, Rule, Screw, Shovel, Sun, Telegraph Wires and Pole, 
Trowel, Volcano, Wheel. 


was the end of Dr. Prince's study; as careful and precise 
a piece of scientific investigation as I have ever come upon. She 
did not fail to appreciate it, and to thank him. He died a couple 
of years later. 

Craig survived him by a quarter of a century; but she did no 
more experimenting. She had satisfied herself, her husband, and 
such authorities as Dr. Prince, Prof. McDougall, and Albert Ein- 
stein, and that was enough. Her mind went on to speculate as to 
the meaning of such phenomena; to psychology, philosophy, and 
religion. What was the source of the powers she possessed and had 
demonstrated? What was the meaning of the mystery called life? 
Where did it come from, and what became of it when it left us, or 
appeared to? She filled a large bookcase with works on these sub- 
jects, studied them far into the night, and discussed them with a 
husband who would have preferred to wait and see. 

At the age of seventy she had her first heart attack, and from 
that time on was never free of pain. For eight years I had her sole 
care, because that was the way she wished it. Her death took many 
weeks, and to go into details would serve no good purpose. I men- 
tion only one very curious circumstance: During her last year she 
had three dreadful falls on a hard plastone floor, and I had taken 
these to be fainting spells. A few days after her death I received a 
letter from a stranger in the Middle West, telling me that he had 
just had a stance with Arthur Ford and had a communication from 
Mary Craig Sinclair, asking him to inform me that her supposed 
fainting spells had been light strokes. I called the doctor who with 
two other doctors had performed an autopsy; I did not mention 
the letter, but asked him the results, and he told me that the brain 
lesions showed she had had three light strokes. 

I tell this incident for what it may be worth. I myself have no 
convictions that would cause me to prejudge it, to say nothing of 
inventing it. 

Ford has promised me a visit.